Chp Cad

[tranquility]

What is the name of your state? CA

I have a California Highway Patrol-Centralized Cad Journaling System Completed Incident Search report. It is filled with jargon and acronyms. Does anyone on the forum know how to read one? Is there any reference material that would assist me in understanding it?

It's not just ten codes and the like, it really is jargon.

 

[outonbail]

What is the name of your state? CA

I have a California Highway Patrol-Centralized Cad Journaling System Completed Incident Search report. It is filled with jargon and acronyms. Does anyone on the forum know how to read one? Is there any reference material that would assist me in understanding it?

It's not just ten codes and the like, it really is jargon.

The CHP has a traffic incident site for the entire state. the address is:

http://cad.chp.ca.gov/

Once on the page, in the upper r/h side of the screen there should be a drop down menu labeled "Resources" One of the items on that menu is "glossary", which you can click on and it will give you a number of their common codes and acronyms so you can understand what is taking place with the incident reports they post throughout the day. This glossary may help decipher some of the information listed on the report you have.

Aside from this information, I would suggest you contact them and see if they make the information available and if so where you can find it.

 

[tranquility]

Thank you outonbail, that was very useful. I had already been to the page on my first quick google search, but wasn't disciplined enough to really search the page. Going to the resources section helped.

 

[TYRIS]

What is the name of your state? CA

I have a California Highway Patrol-Centralized Cad Journaling System Completed Incident Search report. It is filled with jargon and acronyms. Does anyone on the forum know how to read one? Is there any reference material that would assist me in understanding it?

It's not just ten codes and the like, it really is jargon.

I doubt you will find any reference material that would assist you. Cops kind of speak their own language sometimes. Usually it is filled with partial code sections, acronyms and 9,10 and 11 codes all at once. If you know a cop, have him look at it and explain it.

Tyris

 

[tranquility]

Acutally, it's worse than that. Cops wouldn't usually see this. This is a transcript taken by the "dispatcher" (for lack of a better term) the cops communicate with. I need a specific expertise and was hoping to find it here. I guess I'll have to find a true expert--and pay the freight.

 

[outonbail]

Acutally, it's worse than that. Cops wouldn't usually see this. This is a transcript taken by the "dispatcher" (for lack of a better term) the cops communicate with. I need a specific expertise and was hoping to find it here. I guess I'll have to find a true expert--and pay the freight.

tranquility, if you set up your member profile to receive private messages, I may be able to offer some additional information. I just prefer not to post it on the open forum.

 

[CdwJava]

What kind of "jargon" are we referring to?

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

Thanks again outonbail, I've changed my settings. CdwJava asked for a sample:

(The first three places are "Pos", "ID#" and "Time")

025 A12012 13:02:30 .UI.A/PROBATION DEPT[.RL/23.]
023 A10132 13:03:20 .TO.WSMP.M/ATTN SGT [.RL/WSMP.]
023 A10132 13:03:20 .[.D/11:ATTN SGT MURLEY]
023 A10132 13:06:01 .UI.F/D[.IST/0447D0605,F]
019 A10132 13:27:45 .UI.I/R[.RL/23.][.IST/0447D0605,P]
023 A12555 13:27:57 .55-41M.I/447[.IST/0447D0605,A][.UNT/B 55-041M][.STA/ENRT]
023 A12555 13:41:24 .55-41M.M/OFFICE L/447[.UNT/B 55-041M][.STA/ENRT]

It goes on with some places more clear than others. You can clearly tell some things from this, but the exact meaning......eludes me.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay ... so, you did not request a CAD of a specific incident, you asked for CAD entries of specific times?

Keep in mind that the info you have may just be initial entries with each entry having additional data behidn it.

"Pos" is likeloy the "position" of the Dispatcher - it likely identifies the terminal. "ID#" is the serial number of the dispatcher entering the information. And "Time" is ... time of entry (in this case from 1:02 PM to 1:41 PM).

"55-41M" is probably the call sign of a motorcycle officer.

Much of the rest I can only guess on, but it seems that there are Administrative Messages being passed on to a pair of sergeants and three people being assigned or assocated with a call labeled as incident # 0447D0605.

This is what happens when you request Discovery - you get what you ask for, but you may not know what it means. My suggestion would be to make an apopointment to speak to someone at the local CHP office so that they can help you translate what it means and to help you find out what information you might need to request further. It seems all you have are the CAD entries, and not the details.

Good luck.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

Thank you for the time and expertise CdwJava. The acutal CAD does regard a single file or "log" and goes on for a couple of pages. I only included a small portion. The entries were the expanded portion, there is an abbreviated portion that fronts the file.

I agree with the pos, id and time. I'm pretty sure you're also right about the call sign.

I certainly do need more informaiton, both on the general meaning and on the specific practices of the system. For instance, is it the usual practice to "ATTN" (attention?)someone? The station is identified, why direct it to a person?

 

[tranquility]

My best guess (having some knowledge of the background) is that A12012 is the person who took the call in the first place. That line is part of the information received from the reporting party. A10132 is either the dispatcher or supervisor who is directing the call to WSMP station with attention to the SGT. with later, more detailed description of which sergant.

The line at 13:06:01 completely eludes me as does 13:27:45. (Also, why different Pos?) The final two are probably from the officer who is answering the call, once on the radio an once from the office land line.

But, that is just a guess from trying to fit facts I know into the text.

 

[CdwJava]

It could be that some of the information was sent to a station computer and not a specific CAD unit in a vehicle - hence the tag for a specific sergeant.

The different station and ID numbers can simply mean that a different dispatched updated the information or made that entry. The CAD record only shows when entries were made - they do not necessarily reflect the actual timing of an incident. It is entirely possible (not likely, but possible) for an entry to be made minutes - or even an hour - after the incident occurred due to communications problems, etc.

Like a police report, a CAD log is not directly admissable in court. It gives some idea of events but is not evidence by itself - it has to have foundation by someone who was there.

What's this regarding, anyway?

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

This regards the incident I posted when I first came to the forum a short while ago.

I think the CAD may be admissible through a business records exception to hersay. I would need a person who is knowledgable in the ordinary course of business (or sumsuch magic words not at the tip of my tounge) to verify it if it were to be used in court.

I would use it to try to prove many things, knowledge of a special motivation to investigate (probation department RP), stale misdemeanor investigation, stale misdemeanor arrest and the officer lying in depositon about what occurred. (It could not have happened as he claimed it did.) for impeachement on the stand.

 

[CdwJava]

This regards the incident I posted when I first came to the forum a short while ago.

I looked it up after I posted. I did not recall it at first.

I think the CAD may be admissible through a business records exception to hersay. I would need a person who is knowledgable in the ordinary course of business (or sumsuch magic words not at the tip of my tounge) to verify it if it were to be used in court.

You would also need to authenticate it and this would likely take someone who created or worked with the record. Being an official document does not make it automatically reliable - like a police report.

I would use it to try to prove many things, knowledge of a special motivation to investigate (probation department RP), stale misdemeanor investigation, stale misdemeanor arrest and the officer lying in depositon about what occurred. (It could not have happened as he claimed it did.) for impeachement on the stand.

I don't know how having a probation department reporting party would make it any less a crime to be investigated. The police frequently investigate cold misdemeanors - especially when there is suspect information. The fact that it was a probation officer that did the reporting may make the information to be considered a little more reliable, but it does not mean that no investigation would otherwise have been conducted.

Plus, if a crime was alleged they could investigate. Nothing unusual there.

And I didn't see a "stale misdemeanor arrest" - your wife was not arrested, as I recall. If I remember right, YOU were arrested. That was purportedly for actions you took at the scene.

As for the alleged lies, that is often a matter of interpretation ... you say it happened one way, he says it happened another way. It might leave an opening for doubt before a court, but it hardly establishes a lie.

All the CAD might tell you is timing of information or events. It is not going to be all that reliable for details. There are ample case decisions to show that this form of third hand detail is not valid on its face.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

I tried to answer the other statements, but the post was too long. The "lie" gets down to a fishing expedition I did in the deposition. Consider that the officer was QUITE SURE in a police academy-type way about what happened. Exactly. Precisely. Without leave for error. His story is different from mine (which I posted earlier). He says I got home and immediately got between he and my wife with my back to him. Talked to my wife for a moment and started yelling "you can't do this, this is illegal, you haven't even read her her Miranda rights". I then kept my back to him while grabbing my wife and leading her into our house, "yelling incoherently all the time." I then came back out of the house yelling in a "loud and perterbed tone", "if you want to talk to us, you've got to talk to my lawyer" and then turned around and slammed the door.

(from the depo)
Q. "Was there time for me to tell you any of these things: My name, my date of birth, my address?"
A. "Why would you tell me these things?"
Q. "Well, because you asked for my identification, by my words."
A. "Okay."
Q "Did you, in fact, ask for my identification?"
A. "Again, I can't recall if I used that exact verbiage."
Q. "But did you ask -- did you ask anything to that effect?"
A. "I don't recall."
Q "Okay. But if I were, in a loud and perturbed tone, exclaiming these things, and shutting -- slamming the door in your face, I believe was your testimony earlier -- is that correct?"
A. "I believe I said 'slamming the door,' yes.
Q. "Correct. When could I have given you that information? At what point?"
A. "I don't recall having this conversation with you."
Q. "Okay. So if you, in fact, checked me for warrants, and there's a recod for that, how would you get that information?"
A. "That's a good question."
Q. "Do you have an answer to that question?"
A. "I do not."
(Attorney jumps up and requests a break. Officer and attorney re-enter a couple of minutes later..I wonder if a jury will think some coaching went on?)
Q. "...have you any idea as to where you received that information?"
A. "...or whether I ran a cross-reference on the address to get your name and approximate date of birth, and then they came back with a possible match, which was confirmed once you were in custody."
Q. "I see. Would that cross-reference check be loged anywhere?"
A. "It would be if I ran it, yes."
Q. "Okay. Do you know where it would be logged?"
(leading to the CAD report discovery)

That's the lie. Everything he said I did was a lie. I know, I was there. But, the CAD confirms a warrant check was made before I was arrested, and there wasn't any "cross-reference check" made. It's even better on videotape. The moment the officer realizes it could not have happened precisely the way he has just spent an hour going over in exquisite detail a cetain deer in the headlights look comes over his face.

New commercial:
Academy training to be sure of any action you do and answer you give, 27 weeks and 102,456 push-ups.
Court testimony practice in yet another 23152, 345 hours of overtime and one more chance to flirt with that cutie in records.
Moment you realize all that suriety and practice just bit you in the a@@...Priceless.

For telling the truth under oath, rely on you conscience. For everything else, there's MasterCard.