Tracy Press

...
written by MarkDavis , July 15, 2008

Some possible nonsequiturs:

(1) Police policies generally forbid use of law enforcement information systems while driving.

(2) Cell phones are generally not related to professional duties of uniformed officers but are being used for personal communications. It might be better for officers to perform personal communications during break periods in accordance with standard safety practices.

...
written by maybenotdumBcommenT , July 15, 2008

As far as number one on your list. I don't think that is correct. People in emergency vehicles are allowed to use cellphones.

...
written by Ziggy , July 16, 2008

I am sure that Tracy Police Officers find using cell phones has a huge bennifit in the course of conducting daily duties. I am sure there are conversations of a confidentual nature that should not be voiced over their car or handheld radios so the pulic can not hear over the police scanners. It gives them another device to communicate with in catching the bad guys when using a radio is not needed with a particular subject.

Let's quit whining-about their use of these cell phones and give them a break and all the tools they need to keep us all safe in fighting crime.

The next time you see a cop on a cell-phone, it may be your house they are talking about in confidence and going to when it is being broken in to. Don't you think the outlaws could very well have scanners in their cars while casing a place to rob or brek in to? Let the cops do their jobs in keeping us and them safe. And start complaining about the crooks, gangbangers and theives out there.

...
written by solar_biscuit , July 16, 2008

Even my response in the original article was more tactful than this writers. Theresa R. Johnson, nice way to smash on a reader. A rebuttal does not mean disrespecting your fellow citizens. Your paper invited comments, then crushes the people that comment. Very juvenile.

...
written by solar_biscuit , July 16, 2008

Its the "tone" of your comment that sparks my ire.....not the letter itself.

...
written by MarkDavis , July 16, 2008

MBNDC: computers are information systems--not cell phones. Please feel empowered to validate that against Tracy PD policies.

...
written by missyE , July 17, 2008

I find it bizarre that people are so worried about what the police get to do that we don't. THEY ARE THE POLICE. They get to do things the general public doesn't get to. They can carry concealed weapons off duty, they can use computers in their cars, they can use cell phones without hands free devices. Get over it. If you aren't doing their job then why are you so concerned about them? The law was made with the stipulation that police officers are exempt. End of story. Now let's move on to more important matters than whining over what the police get to do that we can't!

...
written by Ziggy , July 17, 2008

missyE very good point...ANNNNNND when you are behind a police car if you don't belive they are exempt just take a look at what the police car license plate reads on top >>>> CA. EXEMPT

...
written by Justin281gt , July 17, 2008

People are such sheep! Hitler at one time was an AUTHORITY figure. Do you people think he should have been exempt from the law? I realize that's an extreme example but it’s certainly much better business to “lead by example” as opposed to the “do as I say not as I do” mentality our police force seems to be so comfortable with. I think a fair policy would be as such: If the officers cell phone was not provided by the city he doesn’t need it for his tour of duty please leave it in your locker, to the contrary, If the cell phone was provided by the city than the city should provide a Bluetooth device so as to be in accordance with state law. Seems fair right?

...
written by Ziggy , July 17, 2008

I say make this town safer and if the police need cell phones then so be it. quit snivveling about our PD and focus your energy on catching the bad guys, like maybe supporting the cops not condeming them for cell phone usage.

...
written by Justin281gt , July 17, 2008

Ziggy,

If the police force have earpieces with communication devices to Headquarters already in their ears (As this letter writer well documents) what possible use for a cell phone could they possibly have except to make personal phone calls while driving around on duty? Are you really that ignorant? If a cell phone was a necessary life saving instrument for law enforcement officers don't you think the city would issue them one?

...
written by seehowitis , July 18, 2008

First, not all police have earpieces. Only the officers that prefer them and pay for them use earpieces. Officers are trained to multi-task. Sometimes they are taking phone reports for victims out of the area while on the way to a call here in town.

Being on a cell phone is not an officer breaking the law. The law clearly states, emergency personel in an emergency vehicle, are exempt. I don't believe officers made the law. I 100% agree that personal business should not be done on work time but, if there is an issue with the cell phone usage, it should be dealt with on a person to person basis by a supervisor.

...
written by seehowitis , July 18, 2008

By the way, all city vehicles are issued cell phones.

...
written by mark j , July 18, 2008

Here's some hands on experience on how cell phones can help the police. For the five years that I have lived in Tracy, my neighbors and I have had a MAJOR problem with a neighbors barking dog. I don't know how many times the police came out on complaints but is was alot. That is what they and animal control told us to do, call, call, call. I know the police have bigger fish to fry so on one call I asked the dispatcher if rather than sending out a car, I could just talk to one of the officers that had already come out. I recieved a call from one of the officers from her cell phone. I took my phone outside while I was talking to her so she could here the dog barking. After doing that a few more times they went out to issue a warning. That officers cell phone saved the department a few trips out to our neighborhood which in turn freed her up for other more important duties.

...
written by Justin281gt , July 18, 2008

My complaint is not necessarily against officers having cell phones if they are issued by the city (as seehowitis has indicated) and useful in the line of duty. I really can’t help but think if we as citizens are required by law to have a Bluetooth device while driving then I can’t see a good reason why our law enforcement officers shouldn’t be required to follow suit. Obviously this law was created in the interest of safety. Would it not behoove our police force to try and set a good example by upholding this, much debated, new law? Teresa Johnson writes:

Did she stop to think for just half a moment that maybe, with the ear pieces they already wear and the lapel mics, another piece of equipment in the other ear might be dangerous?

Let me ask you this, what is the difference between holding a phone to your other ear and briefly inserting a Bluetooth device? I would think the Bluetooth is a better choice since it would provide the officer with the use of both hands while driving. Anyway, I’ve said my piece and I’m sure there is going to be a substantial group of people who disagree with me and think that police officers should receive special treatment to bypass this law that, if upheld, really wouldn’t interfere with their current daily activities. To me that presents a huge double standard.

...
written by fortheunderdog , July 18, 2008

Wearing a Bluetooth device is certainly a better idea than having to hold a cell phone while driving but as many times as the officer has to get out of his/her car there is always the possiblity of losing it in a scuffle.

Cell phones are also used for making telephone contact with people named in a police report. Sometimes it's easier to recontact a victim/suspect/subject via phone than having to drive back and talk to them.

Agencies are instructing their officers to minimize the amount of time they're on cells.

...
written by Justin281gt , July 18, 2008

Underdog,

My suggestion was more along the lines of wearing the Bluetooth only while making or receiving a WORK RELATED phone call to display their support of the new state law. As the letter writer mentioned they do have other earpieces and I can't imagine expecting them to wear a Bluetooth earpiece all day long especially with any other headgear, however when connected to a Bluetooth device you can still hear your phone ringing normally so it seems an easy enough solution for the officer to take off whatever earpiece they are already wearing momentarily and use the Bluetooth device.

...
written by fortheunderdog , July 18, 2008

Justin,

I understand what you're saying. That other earpiece that some officers wear is attached to their mobile radio. Mainly, it's to keep radio traffic from being heard by unwanted ears. Some officers also wear a shoulder mic which they use so they don't have to always take their mobile radio out of its holder. Once the earpiece is plugged into the radio it automatically cuts off broadcasting to the shoulder mic.

I see where the new law might not be agreeable with everyone since law enforcement is exempt from it. Sometimes officers will get confidential transmission and the use of a cell phone will allow it to remain confidential since some broadcasts are picked up by police scanners.

Like I said, I'm sure agencies are aware of the public's view of this new law,the fact that it exempts emergency personell, and have issued instructions to their employees to limit its use.

...
written by Ziggy , July 18, 2008

Justin281gt. I am sure the earpieces are for listening to hand held radios when they are OUT of the vehicle. I am sure (makes sence to me) that they do not wear the ear pices for the car radio when IN the car. Maybe it is pluggen in to the ear but maybe they are not using it. I'm sure they can hear the noises outside of the earpiece fine. Cell phones would give them (I can see why) the edge on certain issues between the differant cops working the same case, more information may be needed in a casual conversation not cut out for radio protocall. With crime the way it is now I am all in favor of the cops having every advantage over the street criminals.



written by Justin281gt , July 17, 2008
Ziggy,

If the police force have earpieces with communication devices to Headquarters already in their ears (As this letter writer well documents) what possible use for a cell phone could they possibly have except to make personal phone calls while driving around on duty? Are you really that ignorant? If a cell phone was a necessary life saving instrument for law enforcement officers don't you think the city would issue them one?

...
written by Ziggy , July 18, 2008

PS hey Justin281gt, are you in the BlueTooth selling business?

...
written by Ziggy , July 18, 2008

I have been told that, the city of Tracy's PD does issue each officer a cell phone for calls related to fighting crime.

...
written by missyE , July 18, 2008

Wah wah wah....police officers get to use their cell phones. (sucking thumb). It's not fair (pounding fists on the ground while kicking legs). It's not, it's not , it's not!

I'm laughing at how some people can't let this go. It's just so ridiculous! SERIOUSLY! I just can't read this anymore!

...
written by mark j , July 18, 2008

missyE, Great point. If we didn't have so many morons running around talking on their cell phones around the clock we would not even have this new law. Too many people in this country have abused their privileges that our forefathers gave us. I believe in freedom but it's time for big brother to step in and take control of a society that has abused it's privileges. I guess I am one of the few people that realizes life can go on with out me if I'm not on my cell phone 24/7. I'm just not that important.

...
written by Justin281gt , July 18, 2008

MissyE,

If your comment is directed at me I guess I am sorry I expect that the law of the land also be followed by the officials sworn to uphold it. Can you BAAAAA like a sheep?

...
written by Justin281gt , July 18, 2008

To all others who were actually respectful in their disagrement I guess we will just have to agreee to disagree on this issue and see how it pans out in the future.

...
written by Justin281gt , July 18, 2008

agree* sorry for the typo, it's late!

...
written by fortheunderdog , July 20, 2008

Hey Justin,

From your name would you happen do drive a Mustang GT with the 281 ci V-8? Just asking.

...
written by fortheunderdog , July 20, 2008

"to drive" sorry.

...
written by Justin281gt , July 21, 2008

Underdog,

Yes, at one time I had a pretty souped up 2002 GT that has since manifested itself into a HEMI powered Dodge Ram. Good catch!

...
written by fortheunderdog , July 22, 2008

My son-in-law has a Hemi Dodge Ram that he's let me "borrow" on occasion for my trips to Home Depot or Lowes. He's added the cold air intake, actually ram air and exhaust. Too much horsepower for a P.U., hard to take off quickly without spinning the rear tires.

...
written by Justin281gt , July 22, 2008

Very true, they sure do have a "torquey" (I'm pretty sure that's not an actual word but bear with me) motor. I find mine really likes to spin the tires when pulling our jet skis out of the water. I suppose now that you're on to my handle I'll have to change my name to Justin5.7L. Have a good night!

...
written by fortheunderdog , July 29, 2008

Nothing wrong with a 5.7L.....that's what I have in my car.