911 Dispatchers: Investigating Their Knowledge of Eyewitness Evidence Collection

911 dispatchers are often the first contact in an emergency, playing a critical role in the investigative process. Presently, a new bill is seeking to nationally reclassify these communications officers, recognizing them as vital first responders, as their initial collection of eyewitness evidence aid in the attainment of crucial information and detailed descriptions of an accident or crime. However, only one study (Kassis, 2017), to date, has examined the training of 911 dispatchers, as well as their self-reported knowledge of the potential influences their language could have on an eyewitness’ memory. While this research highlighted disparities between the perceived role of a dispatcher and the adequacy of their knowledge on eyewitness evidence collection, our overall understanding of these concepts is in its infancy. The current study is a replication and extension of Kassis (2017), aimed to fill this knowledge gap through a survey methodology of 911 dispatchers. Similar to Kassis (2017), the results demonstrated that while a majority of the respondents recognized their role as evidence collectors, they had insufficient knowledge of the fragility of eyewitness memory, specifically the potential harm that “leading” language and post-event information can have on the accuracy of an eyewitness account. Therefore, training and knowledge regarding the collection and preservation of eyewitness memory appears to be largely absent or inadequate among dispatchers. Future directions and potential solutions to this problem are discussed. 911 DISPATCHER KNOWLEDGE 6 911 Dispatchers: Investigating Knowledge of Eyewitness Evidence Collection The first call to 911 was made nearly 50 years ago, in February 1968, in Haleyville, Alabama. This universal emergency number was created to ensure that anyone in the United States could quickly and easily dial public safety for help. Today, the 911 system is a critical service providing access to first responders in any time of need. An estimated 240 million calls are made to 911 in the United States each year (911 Statistics, 2018). With this volume of calls, it is critical that 911 dispatchers are adequately trained to manage various scenarios and ensure the timely response of the appropriate emergency services. Despite their current national classification that merely emphasizes clerical duties, 911 dispatchers, who are often the first contact in an emergency situation, have been described as the “heroes behind the calls,” which has prompted a re-evaluation of their status through Rep. Norma J. Torres' 9-1-1 Supporting Accurate Views of Emergency Services (SAVES) Act (Berry, 2019). The SAVES Act, which is currently under consideration by the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor, is seeking to nationally reclassify communications officers from a nonprotective service occupation to a protective one in the Standard Occupational Classification system, thus attributing dispatchers with recognition as first responders (Berry, 2019). This specialized occupation requires its professionals to think critically and use extensive skills and training to help first responders save lives. Critically, 911 dispatchers must also understand the significance that their communication has when gathering information from callers. Specifically, dispatchers are given the first opportunity to gather detailed descriptions of a crime or perpetrator and are thus responsible for recording a witness’ statements that may 1 The terms “911 dispatcher” and “911 operator” are often used interchangeably. For clarity, the term dispatcher will be used in this thesis to refer to the individual who answers an emergency call. 911 DISPATCHER KNOWLEDGE 7 become crucial in future legal proceedings. For example, in criminal investigations, eyewitness accounts can be essential in helping to identify a suspect or describing key details of a crime (Laney & Loftus, 2018). It has been suggested that eyewitness testimony is likely to be the most persuasive form of evidence presented in court; however, in many cases, its accuracy is dubious, given the fact that eyewitness accounts are susceptible to contamination and error (Laney & Loftus, 2014). The consequences of such errors can be seen in wrongful conviction cases, for example, where mistaken eyewitness testimony was a leading contributing factor in over 70% of DNA exoneration cases (Garrett, 2011; Innocence Project, 2019). As the first point of contact in many cases, 911 dispatchers, tasked with the critical responsibility of initial evidence collection, must be precise in their interactions with callers so as to ensure that the eyewitness’ memory is tested and probed correctly, without leading questions. Along this vein, Kassis (2017) referred to the role of 911 dispatchers as being “evidence collectors,” a role that dispatcher participants in that study concurred with. Despite this, Kassis demonstrated the lack of training dispatchers receive pertaining to eyewitness memory. Critically, evidence of this inadequate training was found across regions. This may be due in part because 911 call centers across the United States are managed by a variety of different local and state agencies, including law enforcement, fire departments, and private EMS units, which may differ in training standardization and practices. Therefore, dispatchers may be more or less equipped with the skills and knowledge to adequately collect information from eyewitnesses depending upon their region and the size of the population they serve. In combination, this information demonstrates a need to standardize 911 dispatcher training on the topic of eyewitness memory so as to equip dispatchers, regardless of location, with the proper guidelines 911 DISPATCHER KNOWLEDGE 8 to ask questions that are clear and appropriate in order to increase the likelihood that memory reports will be accurate. Little is known about 911 dispatcher training on the topic of eyewitnesses, specifically whether there are any standardized procedures relating to what types of questions are used to gather information from witnesses. Therefore, in the event that there are no standardized protocols, it is essential to better understand dispatchers’ knowledge of factors that can affect the reliability of eyewitness memory. The primary reason for this is that research has demonstrated that the wording (Harris, 1973; Loftus, 1975; Loftus & Palmer, 1974), structure, and style of questions (Leding, 2012; Lindsay, 1990; Sharman & Powell, 2012) all have the potential to influence memory. Further, as time passes, memories become more susceptible to error (e.g., Dysart & Lindsay, 2007), thus there is some need to record a witness’ recollection for an event or persons as quickly as possible. The more we learn about dispatchers’ awareness of these factors and practices that they engage in when collecting eyewitness evidence, the better we will understand what safeguards may be needed to prevent eyewitness errors that could arise from memory contamination through 911 calls. Even though there has been one study on the topic, our understanding of the training and knowledge dispatchers have of their influence on callers is in its infancy. The current study is a replication and extension of Kassis (2017), whose examination of 911 dispatchers, the first of its kind, offered valuable insight into the training and knowledge of dispatchers in regard to the questioning and communication techniques used with eyewitnesses. Given their unique position in the criminal justice system and the impending SAVES Act (2019), it is critical for dispatchers to recognize their role as evidence collectors and understand the ways in which certain factors can influence eyewitness memory. This study focuses on two factors, language effects and post911 DISPATCHER KNOWLEDGE 9 event information, given that they are likely the means by which dispatchers may influence eyewitness memory. Malleability of Memory More than a century of psychological research has provided evidence on the fallibility of memory. Memory, for example, becomes more susceptible to post-event information – that is encountered after an incident without immediate recall following the event (Paterson & Kemp, 2006). There are a number of ways in which witnesses can be exposed to post-event information. One of the most common ways might be through conversation with those who have also witnessed the event, otherwise known as a co-witness (Laney & Loftus, 2018). According to witnesses who have been interviewed, the primary purpose of discussions following an event is to attain information and assure consistency (Zajac & Henderson, 2009; Thorley, 2013). However, misinformation from a co-witness has been shown to impair eyewitness accounts, sometimes leading witnesses to report details that they never actually observed (Zajac & Henderson, 2009). In a real-life example, on May 21, 2018, a 911 call was made regarding a robbery of pharmaceuticals at a Walgreens in Connecticut (Surveillance Video & 911 Call, 2018). The caller indicated there were two perpetrators involved in the crime, and provided details on the appearance of one. The following exchange is related to the inquiry about the second individual involved: Dispatcher: What did the other one have? Caller: Does anyone remember what the other one looked like? The caller in this case is clearly asking co-witnesses for their knowledge of the second individual’s appearance. A reading of the full transcript makes clear that no information was provided, but, if there had been, the likelihood of all witnesses adopting this information pertaining to the perpetrator would have increased dramatically. 911 DISPATCHER KNOWLEDGE 10 This type of co-witness sharing or contamination has far reaching consequences, with potentially costly (accuracy) implications for the subsequent investigation and legal proceedings, (Paterson & Kemp, 2005; Skagerberg & Wright, 2008). As way