How Police Can Stop Being Weaponized by Bias-Motivated 911 Calls

Too often, law enforcement lets itself be hijacked by a biased call to 911 — usually a caller reporting a “suspicious person” who is actually just Black. In response to a spate of well-publicized incidents, many are saying that white people should avoid calling the police when an actual crime is not being committed. That’s a start. But police departments also need to retool how they respond to these calls.

Black people and other people of color shouldn’t have to endure police intrusions that lack a legal basis. When police enforce the racial biases of private citizens, they convert those biases into governmental discrimination. Furthermore, such arrests undermine the legitimacy of the police and carry disturbing historical echoes of when the law explicitly relegated nonwhite people to second-class status. By enforcing the will of white people to exclude Black and brown people from public space and everyday activities, these officers recall the role of law enforcement in maintaining Jim Crow and, before that, slavery.

Thanks to the internet and cellphones, the nation at large has seen numerous examples of police acting on the racial biases of those who called them.

At a Starbucks in Philadelphia recently, a white manager called the cops on two Black men waiting for a business meeting, just minutes after they arrived at the coffee shop — the police responded by arresting the two men. In a Yale University dorm, a white graduate student called the cops on a Black graduate student for napping in a common room — the police responded by detaining the Black student for nearly 20 minutes before letting her back inside her own dorm room. At Colorado State University, a white woman on a campus tour called the cops on two Native American teens because they “just really stand out” from the others on the tour — the police responded by pulling these prospective students from the tour to interrogate them. 

HAVE YOU HAD THE POLICE CALLED ON YOU FOR RACIST OR INEXPLICABLE REASONS? SHARE YOUR STORY 

In each of these incidents, the police let the callers use them to weaponize the callers’ own biases, without exercising adequate independent judgment. That independent judgment begins with the dispatcher who answers the 911 call.

Department policies should instruct dispatchers not to unthinkingly send officers to respond to questionable calls with minimal information. When, for example, a caller reports a “suspicious person,” the dispatcher should collect enough information to identify whether the caller has seen possible criminal activity that is worth an officer’s time to investigate. If it becomes clear that the caller is simply being racist rather than vague or inarticulate, the dispatcher should have the discretion to tell the caller that they will not dispatch an officer without a legitimate basis.

That said, if they do decide to send an officer to the scene, the dispatcher should communicate information that lets the officer know of any concerns or reasons to take the reported facts with a grain of salt. A failure to pass along such information will necessarily expose people to serious risks.

For example, in Tamir Rice’s case, if the dispatcher had communicated the caller’s belief that Rice was probably a minor and that the alleged gun was “probably fake,” Officer Timothy Loehmann might have taken time to investigate further instead of promptly shooting and killing a child for carrying a toy gun on a playground.

Once dispatched, the responding officer also needs to exercise independent judgment. The officer should keep in mind that the caller’s statements may not be reliable, and that some people get perverse satisfaction from forcing others into an involuntary encounter with police. Indeed, making false 911 calls to sic a SWAT or SWAT-style law enforcement team on someone happens often enough that it has its own term: “swatting.”

There is a better way.

An incident in May in Tennessee shows how officers can defuse situations and protect people of color who are subjected to the frightening, often humiliating experience of being the subject of a racially motivated or otherwise unjustified call for police. A neighbor called the police on Michael Hayes, a Black real estate investor in Memphis, who was visiting a piece of property. After the police concluded the call was unfounded, they explained to the neighbor that Hayes had the right to be there and warned her not to interfere with his work. She responded by hurling invective at Hayes. At Hayes’ request, the officers stayed for a few minutes to make sure he was able to complete his work unmolested.

By the end of the encounter, a surprised and relieved Hayes said, “The police, they were on my side.” This should be the rule, not the exception.

Training police to resist enforcing other people’s biases is, of course, only a first step. Black and brown people should be able to trust the police to protect them when needed, while leaving them free to live their daily lives. To achieve equal justice, police policies and practices must prioritize the lives, dignity, and constitutional rights of all those they encounter. That starts with recognizing whether they’re responding to a crime or to someone who’s just afraid of Black people.

HAVE YOU HAD THE POLICE CALLED ON YOU FOR RACIST OR INEXPLICABLE REASONS? SHARE YOUR STORY

From Starbucks to Yale, the stories of racial profiling that have hit the news recently are disturbing — but they’re not isolated incidents. If you’re a person of color who’s had the police called on you for inexplicable or racist reasons, share your experiences and ideas through the link above. We may use your story in an evolving collection that we will feature on our website.

View comments (30)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

The person calling may not want any black people to be on the Earth. A professional acts without prejudice and would avoid distractions to policing as a body. A racist is not policing but is using the government as a gun permitting dummy.

Dr. Timothy Leary

I have had the police called on me a few times. I find that if they don't beat you, shoot you, or take you to jail, it's no problem. It's safer to interact with the police than with a rapist, a mugger or a pick pocket.

Anonymous

Police could use more discretion but 911 operators should not be playing around trying to psychoanalyze callers. While they are using up precious time doing that someone with a life or death emergency may not be able to get through. Besides, when people panic, for legitimate reasons, they may not be thinking and communicating clearly or they could be speaking cryptically because someone dangerous is listening. 911 even sends someone to investigate hang up in case someone was afraid to stay on the line.

brensgrrl

This article simply asks dispatchers to (1) GET ADEQUATE INFORMATION FROM THE CALLER TO DETERMINE THE REAL REASON FOR THE CALL, and (2) GIVE COMPLETE INFORMATION TO THE POLICE. These two things can save lives.

Apparently, in the case of the Tamir Rice shooting, the police WERE NOT INFORMED of the caller's belief that it was "probably" a kid with a fake gun. Because of inadequate communication, they were left with the impression that it was an adult with a real gun. Result--A DEAD CHILD.

In the case of the Yale Graduate Student, the dispatcher did not inquire as to the possibility that it was another student. The racist woman simply reported a suspicious person sleeping in the common room, which resulted in the NEEDLESS harassment of another Graduate Student who actually lived in the same building. How could a stranger get into the building without a student ID or student Key Card? The dispatcher never even considered this.

The dispatcher in the Starbucks case never asked the caller if the men explained a reason for being there. If the dispatcher had received the information that "they say they are here for a meeting," police probably would never have been sent.

In the Air B&B case, the matter was pretty clear. People were leaving a house and simply loading suitcases into a car. The caller reported suspicious people stealing from a house. Now, how many burglars put their booty into suitcases and casually load that into a car with a license plate showing? I would have thought that it was simply a case of my neighbors having guests in their home (and that is exactly what it was). If the dispatcher had asked about what exactly was happening (broad daylight and openly loading of suitcases) police would never have been sent.

It takes no more time or effort for the dispatcher to ask some questions first. Of course, if it is clear that the person is in danger ("I'm being robbed!" "He's hitting me!" "He's got a gun!" or the Sudden Hang Up happens) then the dispatcher can act immediately. The article simply asks that dispatchers do their jobs, which is to determine if it's a real emergency or not.

Anonymous

I agree. But only if you acknowledge that in the cases of "#poolpartypaul, #permit patty, and #Bbqbecky. The police were absolutely called in to quote put "black people" in their place! (Please don't respond if you dont know the cultrual and, or, historic meaning. Of ("put blk people in their place")!

Anonymous

This is not what I was told by the police who always say, "If you see something (or someone), say something." Must we wait until we are actually attacked before we call for help?

Anonymous

Of course not. And this article doesn't say that at all. But, if you call 911, provide a description of specifically what the person is doing that is causing you to believe police are needed. Actions are suspicious, personal appearance is not.

Anonymous

"Must we wait until we are actually attacked before we call for help?"

That is really a good question, but it is an extreme.

If you see "suspicious" activity perhaps you should first ask yourself if the activity is suspicious only because of the race of the person. Someone entering a house by the front door in the middle of the day with a set of keys should not be considered suspicious. If a man is jogging through the neighborhood why should you be suspicious?

Anonymous

"Must we wait until we are actually attacked before we call for help?" This mentality is part of the overall problem of prejudice in our country. A person of color doing normal, everyday activities is not something suspicious. If you see something SUSPICIOUS, then yes, call. But the activities outlined in this article and comments are normal, everyday activities that a white person doesn't have to think twice about. I could fall asleep in a chair in a dorm common area and be left alone. Just because she's black, doesn't make it suspicious. America needs a chance in perspective.

Anonymous

Here's an alternative. Ask yourself if you'd call the police if the person you think is suspicious were white. If not, don't call the police.

Pages

Stay Informed