Who are you? Who who, who who? They don't really wanna know
The city and ad agency Hill, Holliday today announced a new PSA campaign to get people to use the anonymous tip line to report crimes.
Police Commissioner Ed Davis, Mayor Tom Menino and Hill, Holliday CEO Mike Sheehan said the new campaign - which will include ads at T stops and on the Fenway Park Jumbotron - had been in the work for months and had nothing to do with July 4th bloodshed. "Hell, no!" Menino said.
Davis said the anonymous tip line has received close to 4,000 tips since it began in 2006, with both a phone line and a first-in-the-nation texting number. He said community tips were vital to getting five guns off Boston streets last night. Sheehan emphasized that none of the people providing those tips had been outed. "Because guess what? If one person in the campaign gets outed, the whole campaign dies."
More generally, he and Menino said police need help from the public in fighting crime. Davis said this morning, one Boston resident picked up a reward for non-anonymous tips on "several homicides."
Comments
Unbelievable.
"Because guess what? If one person in the campaign gets outed, the whole campaign dies."
Really? The CAMPAIGN dies? Wasn't Hill Holiday also behind the more successful "Stop the snitching" campaign?
Won't or can't?
Do they not retain any information on callers so they can not identify them? If they retain information, then what happens when a court subpoena is issued for that information?
They say you can remain anonymous.
http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/crimeprevention/cristop.asp
"You don't have to reveal your identity to the police to provide information about a violent crime. And, if your information results in the arrest and indictment of an offender, you will be eligible for an award of up to $1,000."
...
"The tipline is not recorded or traced, and we are not interested in the caller's identity. We believe Crime Stoppers offers a way for callers to rid their neighborhoods of crime SAFELY. This method has proven successful in over 900 CITIES WORLD WIDE thanks to Crime Stopper programs."
Don't imagine you'd get any rewards if you don't give up your identity, but maybe they have something worked out. Only a minor issue if safety's your real concern, though.
anonymous crime reporting doesn't always work
I once wandered into a neighborhood meeting while visiting the Museum of the National Center of Afro American Artists in Roxbury. The main focus of the discussion was that people tried to report crimes anonymously, but the police would often arrive and do things that identified the reporting person or their address to anyone who was watching.
The community relations person from the police said they were working on it, but the frustrations from the residents showed that this has been a problem for a while.
Hence the tip line, I think
In a previous neighborhood, I had a few times where I called about stuff going on in the neighborhood. The cops insisted on talking to me in person. In one instance I declined and they said they'd send someone anyway, then after checking out the issue, they came and knocked on my door to talk to me further. Thaaaanks.
They're also known for showing up and saying that they got a complaint from someone in the building, or someone who doesn't want her kids seeing that stuff going on, or whatever. Why the need to mention any of this? Couldn't they just have been out patrolling and heard the loudass party and seen the people using substances out on the sidewalk?
I think the idea is that if you use the anonymous tip line, it's handled specifically people who get that you don't want to be identified. When you call the cops normally, the dispatcher doesn't accurately relay that you don't want to remain anonymous, and the authorities in general just don't seem to get that probably most people would rather not have anyone know who called.
(DCF also has a way of telling the family who the anonymous reporter was. I had one where the narrative said "a mandated reporter who works with the child" during the summer when I was the only such person, and one where I was cc:ed on the letter, by name.)
"A certain eeka, who shall
"A certain eeka, who shall remain anonymous." ;-)
Dammit!
I forgot to pull the mask down over my lowercase e's before I submitted the post. I'm always doing crap like that!
There's a difference though,
There's a difference though, between anonymously calling to report a crime in progress, and anonymously calling to provide tips regarding an ongoing investigation.
Not only does the dispatcher not always say that you wish to remain anon, but sometimes they responding officer doesn't have enough info to identify who they're looking for, either because the calltaker didn't get it, or the dispatcher didn't relay it. It is so much easier, and so much more effective, for the officer to speak to the complainant directly.
Depending on the nature of the crime, and where it is taking place, an anon report won't always give you probable cause. So, if you call and say "there is a guy in front of building doing drugs", but he puts the needle away before PD arrives, generally all they can do is speak to him. If you anonymously say "there is a tall white man in an orange coat sitting in front of my building, snorting white powder off the hood of his car", then that may be enough to detain and search the suspect. Even better, complainants who give their name are generally considered to be a reliable source, legally speaking.
The other factor is that crimes that aren't witnessed by police, and where the government doesn't automatically become the accuser, can't be prosecuted without a named complainant. You always have a right to face your accuser.
In my experience, telling someone that you've received complaints lets them know that their behavior is unacceptable by community standards, as well as legal. Also, they always want to know how you ended up there, and even though their the bad guy, don't they deserve a bit of honesty from the police?
TL;DR version: We'd all probably rather not have our neighbors find out that it was us who ratted out their awesome party, but the justice system isn't necessarily set up for that.
At the community meeting, the
At the community meeting, the officer said that the police tried to keep people anonymous if they asked for it when reporting a crime in progress. But many of the people there had stories to the contrary.
And your accuser in a criminal trial is the DA, not the person who called the police.
The system in question here
The system in question here has nothing to do with reporting crimes in progress, though
That depends on the crime. If the victim doesn't show in a simple assault case, for instance, that case is getting thrown out. In fact, criminal cases still get thrown out of courts plenty for this, despite the DA being there.
Tell me how the prosecution of those cases works out...
Anonymous = unprosecutable. So...best-case scenarios go something like this:
a."Jimmy Jones has a gun in Boston Common."-anonymous. Police respond, pat Jones down, find a gun, and then lose motion to suppress because police have neither 1.caller's basis of knowledge or 2.any indication of truthfulness, ie how do I know you're not lying? The anonymity takes away the fear that someone would have of criminal prosecution if they lied to police about Jones having the gun and their identity is known.
b."Jimmy Jones shot Marky Mark. I saw it with my own two eyes."-anonymous. Without more, an arrest is not allowed. Yet due to successful, high-powered marketing campaign, everyone now believes they can remain anonymous. And, as such, we're right back to where we started: witness-less in Boston.
Tell me how the prosecution of those cases works out...
Anonymous = unprosecutable. So...best-case scenarios go something like this:
a."Jimmy Jones has a gun in Boston Common."-anonymous. Police respond, pat Jones down, find a gun, and then lose motion to suppress because police have neither 1.caller's basis of knowledge or 2.any indication of truthfulness, ie how do I know you're not lying? The anonymity takes away the fear that someone would have of criminal prosecution if they lied to police about Jones having the gun and their identity is known.
b."Jimmy Jones shot Marky Mark. I saw it with my own two eyes."-anonymous. Without more, an arrest is not allowed. Yet due to successful, high-powered marketing campaign, everyone now believes they can remain anonymous. And, as such, we're right back to where we started: witness-less in Boston.
Example "a" is pretty much
Example "a" is pretty much spot on. Example "b" could at least point detectives in the right direction, but if the entire case hinges on the testimony of an eyewitness, that's not going to work out, either.
The high powered marketing in this is to encourage people to anonymously come forward with tips about crimes under investigation. Anonymous information can still lead to probable cause. So, if anonymous tipster says "You'll find the gun that shot Marky Mark in the glovebox of the yellow Ford Mustang parked at 123 Any St, police will likely be granted a search warrant, and can recover the gun, dust if for prints, etc.
I guess the larger point I was trying to make is that this marketing push, and the tip system in general, are completely separate from your ability to remain anonymous when reporting a crime in progress.
alertnewengland is incorrect
alertnewengland is incorrect as to example B. A clerk magistrate or judge would never grant a serch warrant based on anonymous information. To obtain the search warrant based on information from a source you need basis of knowledge and Veracity, if you don't have either one its a no go. Please excuse any typos.
Example A. wouldn't play out
Example A. wouldn't play out like that. Police wouldn't respond immediately by running to the common and patting them down. Police (Gang and Drug units anyways) are trained in behavioral tactics. They can actually identify if someone is in possession of a weapon based on the way they walk and talk. These ARE admissible in court.