NORCOM North Marion County Communications Police Fire Dispatch

This article was published in APCO International's magazine Public Safety Communications. It brings to light issues that we deal with every week, requests from citizens and media wanting copies of 9-1-1 calls. Most citizens feel that when they call 9-1-1 that they have some level of protection and that their call, their identity, won't be released. There are a couple of temporary protections against release of this information. Our staff feels strongly that a citizens call to 9-1-1 should not be released to anyone, except public safety personnel, unless the caller has authorized the release. Unfortunately that is not the case at this time in Oregon.

Protection of the Public's
Right to Know?
or Invasion of Privacy?
The First Amendment Under Scrutiny

Close your eyes and pretend .... pretend you've just arrived home from work in the late afternoon on a cold and bleak January day. Keep your eyes closed now, and continue to imagine. You enter your home and discover that it's a violent crime scene. There is blood everywhere. Your spouse and child have been brutally murdered and it looks like your eldest child has shot them and then shot himself. Your entire family wiped out. Gone. Now imagine the agony and disbelief that is conveyed in your voice when you call 9-1-1. Imagine the cries and pleas for help as the calltaker/dispatcher tries to calm you, soothe you, to get enough information from you to send help. Imagine the pain and anguish you feel as you hear your call to 9-1-1 played over and over and over on the evening news.

That was the scenario in Minnesota in 1994 that prompted legislative action to protect the rights and privacy of victims calling 9-1-1 when balanced against the public's right to know what is going on.

In 1994, the Minnesota Data Privacy Statute was amended to protect the voice recording of a 9-1-1 call. Proponents argued that the content of a call to 9-1-1 was, indeed, public record, what was reported, by whom, what response was initiated. That is the true "data" of the call. The passion and pain with which it was reported - how the victim sounded, the cries and screams, the torment and distress with which the report was relayed, however, were not "data," said the Minnesota Legislature, which therefore deemed it protected under Data Privacy.

The public data portion of 9-1-1 calls is now disseminated via written transcripts. A transcript doesn't convey, and therefore protects, the anguish and suffering of the victim. It is only the facts as reported without the sensationalism. Not many transcripts are requested by news media. For one thing, by the time a transcript can be produced, its not "news" any more. Secondly, it is just not as thrilling, moving or dramatic as a voice recording.

The news media argue that the Minnesota law interferes with their right to report the incident completely. That the public's right to know what is happening in its backyard is first and foremost. That the emotion of a 9-1-1 call is just as much a part of that "report" as the incident itself. That by attempting to protect the rights of the individual, the law impedes the rights of the many.

Rhode Island will release voice tapes only to the caller whose voice is recorded on the tape in question.
Maine declares that the recording may be disclosed only to public or private safety agencies for processing emergency calls. Maine law further states that the information may not be used for any commercial purpose.
Missouri law states that "any information acquired by a law enforcement agency by way of a complaint or report of a crime made by telephone contact using the number "9-1-1" shall be inaccessible to the general public."
Pennsylvania protects the privacy of 9-1-1 calls by stating "all related records and tape recordings of 9-1-1 calls that are kept by a 9-1-1 system are deemed confidential and shall be exempt from the Pennsylvania "right to know" law and any other open record law."

Public safety and the media often struggle with this conflict and difference of opinion on whose rights are to be protected. The integrity of the 9-1-1 system is often under challenge in this regard.

The right of citizens to request help, without fearing that the emotion of the moment is going to become the subject of a media blitz, is critical to their confidence in the system. Protection of their right to privacy is necessary to help safeguard against the erosion of public trust in 9-1-1. It is incumbent upon public safety agencies to work with local media to satisfy the right to know and balance that against the rights of an individual to privacy during times of personal crisis.

About the Author
Nancy Pollock is the executive director of the Metropolitan 9-1-1 Board, which coordinates and oversees the Enhanced 9-1-1 system in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. The Metropolitan 9-1-1 Board represents and assists seven counties and 26 PSAPs with regard to 9-1-1 network and database issues for a population of about 2.4 million. She is currently the Minnesota APCO Executive Council representative and is a member of APCO International's 9-1-1 Committee, Management Committee, and International Expansion Task Force. She is the former Minnesota APCO Chapter President, has served on APCO Project 33 (Training Standards), and the National Fire Protection Association's Dispatcher Standards development committee for the NFPA 1061 standard. Ms. Pollock holds a master's degree in management and a bachelor of science degree in communications.

APCO Bulletin
2040 S. Ridgewood Ave.
South Daytona, FL 32119
FAX: (904) 322-2501