If I Radio for Help, Will Anyone Hear Me?
[Posted by Jack Dunphy]
A long-festering problem within the Los Angeles Police Department is finally getting some attention. No, I’m not talking about corruption or racial profiling or any of the other evils that some like to imagine as being rampant within the department. The problem is with the portable radios officers carry, more specifically the alarming frequency with which they fail to work. This is just the latest example of how out of touch the LAPD’s higher-ups are with the cops on the street. The problems with the radios have been apparent for years to those of us who carry them every day, but for some reason the issue has suddenly found the attention of department brass, the police commission, and local news outlets. This week, we’ve seen stories in the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Daily News, and on KABC television about the poor state of the portable radios officers carry in the field.
The city has simply been unwilling to spend the money to replace radios that have long outlasted their predicted service life, and the LAPD now finds itself in a “crisis” it should have seen coming for years. Rarely does a week go by that I don’t have to return a radio after finding it to be somehow defective. Ordinarily I discover these defects under innocuous circumstances, like when trying to make a routine broadcast only to discover I can’t be heard. But on more than one occasion I’ve had my radio fail during a foot pursuit, when I was unable to hear or transmit information that might save my own or another officer’s life.
I recall a news story from back in June in which police commissioner Anthony Pacheco said he was “personally embarrassed” by the results of one of the hundreds of paperwork audits the department is so fond of conducting these days. Would that Mr. Pacheco and his fellow commissioners be as embarrassed to send cops out in the field with safety equipment that doesn’t work.
but for some reason the issue has suddenly found the attention of department brass
Might “some reason” trace back to the Left’s recent attempts to diminish Giuliani over this very issue? They could well feel that the attacks might be more effective if the issue were less obscure.
ras (adf382) — 8/1/2007 @ 11:14 amThis is the bread and butter job of a police chief. Unfortunately, LAPD hasn’t really had one for nearly two decades.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/1/2007 @ 1:10 pmThe Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is an organization of approximately 14,000 women and men who are responsible for maintaining a safe, crime-free environment. The Chief of Police/General Manager administers an annual budget of $1.189 billion and has over 10,354 sworn officers under his jurisdiction.
http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/834
$1.2 billion a year.
About what the U.S. spending ech week to patrol Baghdad, a city 2/3 the size of L.A.
Food for thought.
alphie (015011) — 8/1/2007 @ 1:23 pm“… The problems with the radios have been apparent for years to those of us who carry them every day, but for some reason the issue has suddenly found the attention of department brass, the police commission, and local news outlets. …”
Could the reason be a PR campaign from a company who wants to sell the LAPD radios? I hate to be cynical about this but I have seen a lot of cases where a naive organization is sold an expensive new system that ultimately doesn’t work any better (or sometimes even as well) than the flawed but functional existing system. Is money the only problem here or is there a significant risk of buying a new system which doesn’t work?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 8/1/2007 @ 1:43 pmFood for thought. So maybe we should get out of Iraq so the feds can buy LAPD new radios?
tmac (0c909a) — 8/1/2007 @ 2:18 pmfood for thought? How so? How much did it cost to go to the moon? That has just as much connection. Food for thought and all that. What is it exactly you do for a living and how in the world do you earn enough to support yourself?
buzz (9e5c44) — 8/1/2007 @ 2:35 pmNot reallly, tmac.
Just that while patrolling the streets of Baghdad may be more dangerous than patrolling the streets of L.A., it is not inherently more expensive to do so.
Our troops in Baghdad are basically doing the same job that the cops in L.A. do:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001497.html
Big city police departments are pretty cost effective.
I think New York City’s police department has a budget of around $2 billion a year, btw.
alphie (015011) — 8/1/2007 @ 2:38 pmAnother attempt at thread hijacking by alphie the blogroach I see.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/1/2007 @ 3:08 pmI suppose numbers can be political, Robin.
I’d argue that our local police forces provide us with far more protection, even from terrorists, than the U.S. military does.
Yet we spend about $6000 a year per American family on the U.S. military and the citizens of L.A. spend only about $850 a year on their local police force.
I think we’d be far more safer if we reversed those numbers.
alphie (015011) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:04 pmalphie – You could argue that, yes. However, were you to argue that, you would simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a sack of hammers is exponentially smarter than you.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:24 pm–More nearly on topic: I’ve been wondering for a long time now about special use cell phones.
That is, ask Motorola or Nokia to build a cell phone with no keypad, which when triggered calls one number and one only: the dispatcher for that shift in that area. The dispatcher would have a program that listed which mobile numbers were assigned to which badge/beat/patrol, and instead of having to broadcast “Seven Alpha Nine, report” could simply punch up 7A9 and have it dial the specific officer.
The various cellphone providers could compete to provide the service, with one of the items they compete on being the priority of police calls (yes, the cellphone system can assign higher priority to some numbers than others.) The phones themselves would be more expensive than standard cell phones because they’d have to be more rugged and because they’d be low-volume items — although I can see a consumer version parents could hand to young kids; same circuitry, different case. VHF and UHF radios are not cheap, either.
Because the “radio” would be at root a fairly standard phone, things like Bluetooth headsets would work fine and give lots of usage flexibility. The system wouldn’t have any worse blackout areas than UHF radios, probably better in a place like Los Angeles.
Why not?
Regards,
Ric Locke (724456) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:49 pmRic
It’s really a shame that the LAPD is just a shell of its former great self.
It suffers from poor leadership and management, not from a lack of talented troops (not counting all the inept affirmative-action hires, that is).
The old LAPD, I miss thee…
thebronze (17f671) — 8/1/2007 @ 9:13 pmJack –
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/1/2007 @ 10:15 pmPardon my snark, but, when was the last time members of the Police Commission actually cared anything about the feet on patrol?
Or, for that matter, anyone in the upper levels of Parker Center?
As RR correctly noted, leadership at Parker Center has been AWOL since at least ’94, and too involved with internecine warfare with City Hall before that.
I would venture to say that some of the private patrol providers operating in the City have better and/or more modern comm systems than does the LAPD. A total abdication of responsibility by the PC, Council, and Mayor.
What’s the old saying: We get the government we deserve!
I recall that the DC police spent something like $24 million (I think) in the past five years to set up a new communications system, only to find the radios did not work in certain parts of buildings. This in itself, while not good for the people using the radios, is understandable because there are some places, such as basements where there may be deadspots.
The real probem was they did not discover any of these deadspots until after they purchased the comunications system.
James B. Shearer may well be on to something regarding a manufacturer trolling (or maybe bribing people) for access. Unfortunately, this is how you get bad systems. The Statement of Requirement ends up being written, not with the users requirements but, with the trollers equipment specs as the users requirements.
Rick Locke’s comments are interesting. Maybe the Statement of Requirement should be worded so that the method of comunication does not limit the type of equipment to radios.
davod (5bdbd3) — 8/2/2007 @ 3:54 amHey TMAC – BUZZ: Iraq’s 26 million residents are plagued by 200,000 insurgents of which half or less are active. That’s an 800-to-1 citizen/terrorist ratio.
Los Angeles’ 4.3 million residents are plagued by 40,000 active gang members, of which most are active. That’s a 100-to-1 citizen/terrorist ratio.
Clark Baker (aed821) — 8/2/2007 @ 5:55 pmLA’s insurgency is eight times that of Iraq! The only difference is that our gangsters don’t have artillery shells and car bombs… YET…