Cited by 41Policing Practices and PerceptionsLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesCriminal Justice and Penology

How 911 callers and call‐takers impact police encounters with the public: The case of the Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrest

Open access
Gillooly, Jessica W.·2020·Criminology & Public Policy

Abstract

Research Summary: The Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrest provides an illuminating case study to show how the omission of dispatch in police reform conversations limits our understanding of police officer action. Using conversation analysis, this article analyzes the 911 call and radio transmission from the Gates incident to dissect the function of the 911 call‐taker, and their impact on policing in the field. This analysis shines light on a previously overlooked call‐taker function—risk appraisal—and concretely shows how the call‐taker played a pivotal role in escalating the caller's uncertainty and, thus, primed the responding officer for a more aggressive encounter. Policy Implications: Through unpacking precisely how the call‐taker appraised risk—namely through extraction, interpretation, and classification of caller information—this article provides a framework to evaluate call‐taker actions. The findings suggest the need for training that instructs call‐takers to assess risk in more sophisticated ways. Preserving uncertainty may reduce the overestimation or underestimation of incidents and improve future police encounters with the public.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1745-9133.12508

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Call takers and dispatchers share cautious sentiment and err toward assuming danger when caller information is ambiguous, leading to overuse of police in emergency response.

    “That cautious sentiment is shared by call takers and dispatchers who err toward assuming danger when the information provided by a caller is ambiguous, leading to overuse of police in emergency response (Gillooly, 2020;Klinger & Bridges, 1997).”

    From Diverting 911 calls: Lessons from early adopting urban jurisdictions (2024) · cites this paper as Gillooly, 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gillooly, J. W.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Gillooly, Jessica W.
Venue
Criminology & Public Policy
Published
2020-07-09
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
787-804
ISSN
  • 1538-6473 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9133
OpenAlex
W3040747077
Cited by
41
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
18.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Criminology & Public Policy (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
risk assessment, police dispatch, police reform, police behavior, radio transmission, police-citizen interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review