The other side of the coin

[maestro pistolero]

The lack of basic human compassion was traded off for the defense of CYA police officers, who didn't even have the wisdom or experience to articulate a proper reason for failing to act. 'We don't have the tools' amounts to 'the dog ate my homework'.

Shouldn't there be SOME means for a welfare check in such a circumstance? For example, what if a police officer in the location of the husband were to verify his ID and call it in? How long could that take? If I, as a civilian, in 5 seconds, can think of a way to verify the gentlemen's identity, why is that so insurmountable for LE professionals?

Let me ask all of you, including the OP, If YOUR pregnant wife, who you knew to be 100 percent reliable and prompt for doctors appointments, missed an appointment while you were 4 hours away, and was unable to be reached by phone, what would you want or expect the police to do? OH wait, they would take your word for it, because YOU have a BADGE. Put yourself in this man's position for two seconds. Is walking away really the responsible thing to do? Is it REALLY the only option, drive away and don't look back?

[OuTcAsT]

So when a cop, swat team, busts down a door because of a "informant" who may or may not have been vetted and ends up being the wrong address, it's ok.

Nope, That is an illegal act and all heads concerned should roll. Unfortunately, it usually does not work that way, but that is a different debate.

But a voice on the phone about a medical emergency is not ok.

First, how could the husband claim a "medical emergency" from 4 hours away, he is not there, and has only the fact that she is not answering the phone as evidence. Police responded, tried to see if they could find any evidence that someone was in trouble, all was quiet, end of story. Second, Do you really want it that easy to get a door kicked in ? Easy enough that I could call from right here and say " I'm Dustmonkey's Brother, (of course, I'm not) he is not answering the phone and I think he might be in the midst of a medical emergency could you swing by and kick in the door to check" ? I think not. You and I have come down on the same side of an argument such as this more than once, but this time you are a bit off-base friend. Put aside your outrage over abuses of LE powers that have occurred ( there are plenty, on that we agree) and look at this incident, you will see that the cops stayed lawful and that is a good thing. It is s shame this lady had to suffer this alone, and thank God she, and the baby are OK, but the blame goes on the husband, he knew there was an issue, and chose to leave her there alone, his attempt to shift his personal responsibility to someone else to cover his own negligence is the outrageous part of this story.

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

The lack of basic human compassion was traded off for the defense of CYA police officers, who didn't even have the wisdom or experience to articulate a proper reason for failing to act. 'We don't have the tools' amounts to 'the dog ate my homework'.

I've already said that it's probable that excuse was given by the dispatcher so she (pretty sexist huh?) didn't have to give an long detailed explanation.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Shouldn't there be SOME means for a welfare check in such a circumstance? For example, what if a police officer in the location of the husband were to verify his ID and call it in? How long could that take? If I, as a civilian, in 5 seconds, can think of a way to verify the gentlemen's identity, why is that so insurmountable for LE professionals?

Unless someone at the PD he was calling recognized his voice or he called his own department and got them to call the PD where the home was, there's no way of verifying his identity. This is key to changing the situation, determining if he has the authority to give permission to enter.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Let me ask all of you, including the OP, If YOUR pregnant wife, who you knew to be 100 percent reliable and prompt for doctors appointments, missed an appointment while you were 4 hours away, and was unable to be reached by phone, what would you want or expect the police to do? OH wait, they would take your word for it, because YOU have a BADGE.

The difference is that there's a way to verify through official channels the identity of a police officer. And since it had gone though all those official channels if it turned out that she had a flat tire on her way to the doctor's office, certainly much more likely an occurrence than what we have here, he'd know that he was on the hook for damage that was caused.

There is a way to get all this done but depending on calls for service (this is not an known emergency) it might take just as long as it took him to drive home. He could have called an officer from the PD where he worked to his office and shown him his ID that had his home address on it. Failing that he could have used the company's records to establish that he DID live there. Then that officer could have his station call the PD where he lived, where his wife was and then he could have given permission.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Put yourself in this man's position for two seconds. Is walking away really the responsible thing to do? Is it REALLY the only option, drive away and don't look back?

It's the only thing that the law and policy lets us do these days.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply # zzz

[johnbt]

"If YOUR pregnant wife, who you knew to be 100 percent reliable and prompt for doctors appointments, missed an appointment while you were 4 hours away, and was unable to be reached by phone, what would you want or expect the police to do? "

Search every hospital emergency room; every ditch and waterway between the house and the doctor's office; every Wal-Mart pharmacy; and every doc in a box clinic; and put out a freaking apb you know. Well, you asked.

I mean, really, what evidence is there that my wife is at home and the police (coppers to those of you stuck in the 19th century or somewhere else) need to kick the door in.

John

[TailGator]

Did the dispatcher err in sending only police officers, without EMS/rescue people?

I understand the reluctance of police to break down doors on the basis of a telephone call, but the situation was that a man was concerned about his pregnant wife not responding, possibly for quite a period of time (not entirely clear from the article). The comparison to someone missing a lunch date or not answering a phone call may not be entirely apt; there was at least some reason to be concerned about a medical problem, and it turned out that those concerns were justified (with, admittedly, 20-20 hindsight).

Can someone educate us civilians about what tools that EMS/rescue people have and use to enter locked buildings?

[ftd]

The law cuts both ways, the same law that protects us from an illegal search, (or a prank phone call) Also places "personal" responsibility firmly on the shoulders of you, your family, and friends, if you, or someone in your home, has special medical needs. I can take no umbrage with the officers in this case, they stayed within the law all the way, as it should be. Is it regrettable that this happened ? Absolutely, but the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the only persons who took a calculated risk, the Husband, and ultimately, the Wife.

How did "special medical needs" become an issue in this case, besides the woman having an unexpected seizure?

How did the wife take a calculated risk? By getting pregnant?

Look, we all know that LEs have a really tough job and that they are abused for both doing and not doing. But aren't they supposed to investigate? Are there only 2 options - clicking out and busting down the door - in a situation like this? Maybe the abuse level would go down just a tad if more LEs tried just a little harder to actually help the people who employ them.

[OuTcAsT]

How did "special medical needs" become an issue in this case, besides the woman having an unexpected seizure?

I'm sorry, I just assumed that everyone had read the article that was posted in the OP concerning the fact that the woman was pregnant, and experiencing pain, enough so that she planned on seeing a doctor ASAP. (which, of course, turned out to be too late)
Pain is generally a good indicator that the body perceives something is not as it should be. My bad.

I would think this would qualify her as having a medical need. But this is only my opinion.

How did the wife take a calculated risk? By getting pregnant?

Usually, a sudden onset of pain, particularly during a pregnancy, would be treated as a symptom of a possible problem. I would submit that both husband, and wife took a risk by not seeking immediate medical attention, and by his leaving her alone, and going 4 hours away, only to seek attention at a later time.

But aren't they supposed to investigate?

You might also notice in the article that the police did respond, and investigate within the fullest extent allowed by legal means. They could find no evidence of a problem, reported as such, and left the home.

Are there only 2 options - clicking out and busting down the door

No, only 1 legal option.

in a situation like this?

The "situation" is that an unknown, male, claiming to be the husband of the occupant, called from a great distance away, and requested a welfare check of the woman in the home. Police responded, saw nothing to indicate that there was a problem, (or for that matter, anyone at home) and left.

I will ask the same question of you that I asked in an earlier post ;

Do you really want it that easy to get a door kicked in ? Easy enough that I could call from right here and say " I'm Dustmonkey's Brother, (of course, I'm not) he is not answering the phone and I think he might be in the midst of a medical emergency could you swing by and kick in the door to check" ?

It is a simple choice, either you want the protections the law offers against an unlawful forced entry into your home, or you do not.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

I'm sorry, I just assumed that everyone had read the article that was posted in the OP concerning the fact that the woman was pregnant, and experiencing pain, enough so that she planned on seeing a doctor ASAP. (which, of course, turned out to be too late)
Pain is generally a good indicator that the body perceives something is not as it should be. My bad.

There's an awful lot of this article, and the resultant claim, that just didn't meet the smell test.

The above exemplifies my initial reaction. Just what was this husband thinking?

OuTcAsT, what I've found is that people read what they want to read. Just like they hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see.

When it comes to the police, some only see the bad. Facts, be damned.

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by ftd

Look, we all know that LEs have a really tough job and that they are abused for both doing and not doing. But aren't they supposed to investigate? Are there only 2 options - clicking out and busting down the door - in a situation like this? Maybe the abuse level would go down just a tad if more LEs tried just a little harder to actually help the people who employ them.

What "abuse level" are you referring to? What would you have the police do in a situation like this?

[OuTcAsT]

Antipitas,

You are, of course, correct.

[Michael Anthony]

I'm with Antipitas, Outcast. You're talking to a brick wall it seems. The fact remains they had no legal authority or duty to enter. That's not your opinion... it is a fact... and people will still argue.

The very same people who cry out about their civil rights being violated are the ones who want the police to be "proactive." The truth is you don't want the police you think you want. If you lived in a country that was not free, the police would have the authority to kick in any door they want. It does indeed cut both ways.

Outcast also hit the nail on the head with his statements about their friends and family. Safety and welfare is a community problem (of which the police are a part), not just a police problem.

I think the ones crying out simply may not know how common the welfare check call is answered. They are split to three types of welfare checks: A) The caller just can't reach the person, B) The caller wants to harass the person or C) Various other BS.

[Donn_N]

Aboagye says he asked police to break down the door but says police were unable to do so because they did not have the tools.

I stumbled onto this thread searching for something else, but the above sentence tells most of the story as far as I'm concerned.

There didn't seem to be any reluctance on the part of the police to break down the door, only that they were too whimpy to do so without tools.

Yes, I read the posts saying the dispatcher probably lied rather than just say, "They can't legally do that, sir", but I'm not buying it. Are dispatchers trained to just make stuff up rather than stating the simple truth?

And while police don't generally break down the door of the wrong address, they do break down doors and perform raids on the basis of anonymous tips, so the idea that they couldn't break down the door on the say so of the victim's husband, is a little silly.

[bigger hammer]

Aboagye says he asked police to break down the door but says police were unable to do so because they did not have the tools.

Originally Posted by Donn_N

I stumbled onto this thread searching for something else, but the above sentence tells most of the story as far as I'm concerned.

It does? It seems to me that it's only a very minor, side issue, of the story.

Originally Posted by Donn_N

There didn't seem to be any reluctance on the part of the police to break down the door, only that they were too whimpy to do so without tools.

They didn't break the door down because they had no cause to do so.

Originally Posted by Donn_N

Yes, I read the posts saying the dispatcher probably lied rather than just say, "They can't legally do that, sir", but I'm not buying it.

It's pretty much guaranteed that had the dispatcher said what you suggest, the discussion would turn into the same sort of argument that we have here. Sorry, but police dispatchers have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in this.

Originally Posted by Donn_N

Are dispatchers trained to just make stuff up rather than stating the simple truth?

The "Unofficial Mantra"of the Marine Corps is "Adapt, Improvise, Overcome." Sounds as if she "improvised." Uhoh! Is that more "militarization of the police?" lol

Originally Posted by Donn_N

And while police don't generally break down the door of the wrong address, they do break down doors and perform raids on the basis of anonymous tips, so the idea that they couldn't break down the door on the say so of the victim's husband, is a little silly. [Emphasis added]

No they don't (at least not properly) "on the basis of ANONYMOUS tips." Since you disagree, please show us evidence to support this statement.

[Wagonman]

coppers to those of you stuck in the 19th century or somewhere else)

What does that comment mean?

Yes, I read the posts saying the dispatcher probably lied rather than just say, "They can't legally do that, sir", but I'm not buying it. Are dispatchers trained to just make stuff up rather than stating the simple truth?

Uh yeah, The Police are legally allowed to lie in the course of their duty-----kinda makes the playing field level since everyone lies to us.

And while police don't generally break down the door of the wrong address, they do break down doors and perform raids on the basis of anonymous
tips, so the idea that they couldn't break down the door on the say so of the victim's husband, is a little silly.

No they don't and if they do they will be punished.

For everyone who wanted the Police to kick in the door and save the day PM me your address and I will have the Police come to your home at 0 dark thirty, kick in your door and get you medical assistance.

Why couldn't the husband called a friend or family member to handle the situation? He could've broken every window or door LEGALLY.

[JustDreadful]

Why couldn't the husband called a friend or family member to handle the situation? He could've broken every window or door LEGALLY.

Now there's a sensible question

[OuTcAsT]

For everyone who wanted the Police to kick in the door and save the day PM me your address and I will have the Police come to your home at 0 dark thirty, kick in your door and get you medical assistance.

Or hell, just post it here on tha interwebz , Since there is no way a dispatcher could possibly be "tricked", or "lied to", you should have nothing to worry about

[ftd]

Outcast and Antipitas,

Regarding "calculated risk" -

Sorry, I was referring to a later news posting than the one presented in this thread that said that the wife had a seizure which caused her black-out and the birth - no mention that she had any history of seizures. Could this have been anticipated? You decide. I don't think we have enough information to place al blame on the wife or husband.

Regarding other investigation options -

How about contacting the landlord (who has the legal authority to enter the apartment) to come and inspect the apartment. Not illegal and no lawsuit, just a little extra effort and time.

If LEs only look for evidence of a crime, why weren't emt's called or also called to the site?

I am not accusing the LEs or anyone else of any wrong doing, just suggesting that an outcome could have been different by using some other approaches.

[OuTcAsT]

Sorry, I was referring to a later news posting than the one presented in this thread that said that the wife had a seizure which caused her black-out and the birth - no mention that she had any history of seizures. Could this have been anticipated? You decide.

The article in the OP is very clear about the fact that the wife was experiencing an amount of pain the evening prior, that was alarming enough for her to consult a doctor, and make an appointment. While it is impossible to say for sure, the pain, (in her lower back) might indicate a premature onset of labor. The premature labor may have been the proximate cause of the seizure, rather than the opposite. Not stating fact, just speculation based on the story.

I don't think we have enough information to place al blame on the wife or husband.

On this point, I disagree. They both knew that there was something not quite right or, there would have not been enough concern to warrant a Doctors appointment.

I don't feel it unreasonable to think that they should have sought immediate medical attention, or at the least, the husband should have kept her under observation until the appointment, either directly, or through friends or family.

Regarding other investigation options -

How about contacting the landlord (who has the legal authority to enter the apartment) to come and inspect the apartment. Not illegal and no lawsuit,

First off, you are incorrect on a couple of the finer points about landlord rights, The landlord can inspect the property, but this usually requires advance notice, and, permission. Usually a landlord can only enter the apartment with that permission, or on an emergency (Fire, Flood) basis. Otherwise, it is illegal.

Now, Had the Husband called the landlord, and requested that he enter, that could likely have been done. The police, however, do not have the authority to make such a request. it would be the same as kicking the door.

If LEs only look for evidence of a crime, why weren't emt's called or also called to the site?

While I will not speak for LE, in general, a welfare check likely would include looking in windows, knocking on and checking doors, listening for moans, yells, screams, or any signs of trouble.
As an EMT, I can tell you that there is no evidence that I could find, that a cop would not also recognize as a sign of trouble. (Incidentally, lots of, if not most, LEO's are cross trained as medical first responders, EMTs or Paramedics.

Sorry to tell you, but this was not a failure of LE, to do their job. It is a failure of people taking personal responsibility for their own well being.

[Michael Anthony]

Outcast you are absolutely right on all points except for "lots of" or "most" LEOs also being EMTs. This is pretty rare in most areas.

I would say "some" are, but not "most" or even "lots."

Your description of what is done on a welfare check is pretty much dead-on, and echoes what Wagonman posted they usually entail. Without something to arouse suspicion, the job is done. And to answer the repeated point that will be raised: No, the dude on the phone does not arouse suspicion that something is going on. In fact in the same situation, my first guess would be this is her estranged husband trying to harass or control. That's just my personal opinion though.

Your last sentence is the end-all. Some people cannot and will not ever understand that because of the civil rights they hold so dear, some problems become solely theirs.

[OuTcAsT]

you are absolutely right on all points except for "lots of" or "most" LEOs also being EMTs. This is pretty rare in most areas

Mr. Anthony,

Thanks for clearing that up, I will tell you that it is becoming increasingly popular in my particular area, due to the rapid growth of population in my, and surrounding, counties.

Cross-training LEOs as Firefighters, and EMTs maximizes the manpower available for large scale situations, and, since LE is typically the first on the scene of car crashes, fights, and DV incidents, a trusted logistical assessment can be made before other assets start to roll.

It is also a win-win in the case of a fire fight, as an officer down can begin to receive medical care before EMTs could even enter the scene.

You may start to see this trend in your area, as budgets for personnel get smaller but, the population does not.

Some people cannot and will not ever understand that because of the civil rights they hold so dear, some problems become solely theirs.

Agreed, you simply cannot have it both ways. Either the law protects your rights to privacy, and against illegal search, or, you might just as well leave your front door open.

I don't think it's any surprise that I prefer my rights to stay intact, and will see to the well-being of my own family as required.

Stay Safe !

[ftd]

Outcast,

First off, you are incorrect on a couple of the finer points about landlord rights, The landlord can inspect the property, but this usually requires advance notice, and, permission. Usually a landlord can only enter the apartment with that permission, or on an emergency (Fire, Flood) basis. Otherwise, it is illegal.

From: http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/Homeles...t_Handbook.pdf

The Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act

[introduction]
The VRLTA, Sections 55-248.2 through 55-248.40 of the Code of Virginia, was initially enacted into law in 1974. The VRLTA establishes the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants in Virginia. The VRLTA supersedes all local, county, and municipal landlord and tenant ordinances. It also prohibits certain lease clauses.

§ 55-248.10:1. Landlord and tenant remedies for abuse of access.
If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the landlord may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees. If the landlord makes an unlawful entry or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner or makes repeated demands for entry otherwise lawful but which have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees.

§ 55-248.18. Access; consent.
A. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workmen or contractors. The landlord may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the tenant in case of emergency. The landlord shall not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant.

This clearly gives the landlord emergency access to the apartment. I could find no definition of the word "emergency", nor limitations to the term within the VRLTA. Maybe there have been court cases that have limited the term "emergency" in this act to "fire, flood". I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The article in the OP is very clear about the fact that the wife was experiencing an amount of pain the evening prior, that was alarming enough for her to consult a doctor, and make an appointment. While it is impossible to say for sure, the pain, (in her lower back) might indicate a premature onset of labor. The premature labor may have been the proximate cause of the seizure, rather than the opposite. Not stating fact, just speculation based on the story.

Sorry, but I can't do much about "might" or "may". Speculation is sometimes helpful. I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

I don't feel it unreasonable to think that they should have sought immediate medical attention, or at the least, the husband should have kept her under observation until the appointment, either directly, or through friends or family.

The wife called her doctor the day before, when she had the pain. He could have told her to come in immediately or go to the emergency room. If he did, she definitely took a calculated risk by not following that advice. If the doctor told her to come in the next morning then I wouldn't fault her for waiting. We don't know. The husband said that she was fine before he left for work.

[OuTcAsT]

A quick lesson on Landlord/Tenant law, why would you think this law has this remedy;

If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access,

Injunctive relief requires the landlord appear before a judge, in court, to prove the right to reasonable access, or that it has been denied. Wonder why he can't just use the key? Hint: It's illegal. This may also give you some insight as to the spirit of the law as it pertains to "emergency" access without consent. It is typically frowned upon except in the event it is necessary to prevent, or contain, a catastrophic incident.
IE Fire/Flood. These laws tend to favor the privacy of the tenant over the right of inspection by a landlord. In other words, If you don't want your landlord to have access to your apartment, he must sue to get it. (or set it on fire)

I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

Ok, reasonable speculation, so let me ask, given that;

"And nobody responded, so I call 911 to come to my house and check my wife with my one-and-a-half-year (old) boy. So, when they came they knocked on the door and told me ... that nobody responded in the house, no TV, no noise, no nothing in the house," he said. [

what "more investigation" could be done within the law?

Understand that, as far as the police are concerned, all they have is, what amounts to an anonymous call that something may (speculation on the husband's part)
be wrong, in what appears to be a possibly empty (nobody home) apartment.

What would you have the police, firefighters, ems, do ?

[bigger hammer]

FTD quotes from the VRLTA and then writes this;

Originally Posted by ftd

This clearly gives the landlord emergency access to the apartment.

Yes it does but only under certain conditions, none of which existed.

Originally Posted by ftd

I could find no definition of the word "emergency", nor limitations to the term within the VRLTA. Maybe there have been court cases that have limited the term "emergency" in this act to "fire, flood". I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I can't speak for the law there, only here in CA. In this context "emergency" means such things as "a smell of natural gas emanating from the apartment." Ditto for "smoke" and such things as put other tenants in danger. It would also apply to "medical emergencies" of those inside the apartment, but it's already been pointed out that we have no indication of any such "emergency." It's only "after" the fact that we know that there was one.

Originally Posted by ftd

Sorry, but I can't do much about "might" or "may". Speculation is sometimes helpful. I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

I speculate that they did all they could have done. Perhaps you have a suggestion about what further steps they should have taken?

Originally Posted by ftd

The wife called her doctor the day before, when she had the pain. He could have told her to come in immediately or go to the emergency room. If he did, she definitely took a calculated risk by not following that advice. If the doctor told her to come in the next morning then I wouldn't fault her for waiting. We don't know. The husband said that she was fine before he left for work.

Again showing us that there was no "emergency" known to anyone at the time.

[ftd]

Injunctive relief -

The same applies to the tenant, as previously quoted from section 55-248.10:1. So what? My point is that this act does not specify criminal penalties. Please note the terms "unreasonable" and "repeated".

If the landlord makes an unlawful entry or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner or makes repeated demands for entry otherwise lawful but which have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees.

Section 55-248.18, previously quoted, addresses "Access; Consent", and says that the landlord can enter without gaining consent in an emergency.

Injunctive relief requires the landlord appear before a judge, in court, to prove the right to reasonable access, or that it has been denied. Wonder why he can't just use the key? Hint: It's illegal. This may also give you some insight as to the spirit of the law as it pertains to "emergency" access without consent. It is typically frowned upon except in the event it is necessary to prevent, or contain, a catastrophic incident.
IE Fire/Flood. These laws tend to favor the privacy of the tenant over the right of inspection by a landlord. In other words, If you don't want your landlord to have access to your apartment, he must sue to get it. (or set it on fire)

Injunctive relief is not about legality, it is about rights - there is no criminal penalties involved with this issue as defined by this act; also, no definition of "lawful" and unlawful" acts is provided. If a truly "unlawful" act occured, it must be rosecutable through other laws in addition to the injunctive relief specified in this act.

I have found no additional references to your contentions concerning "typically frowned upon" or "catastrophic incident. IE Fire/Flood". Could these be from policy manuals instead of law or court reviews?

what "more investigation" could be done within the law?

I've already said that I think they should have done more to try to gain access (NOT "break down the door"), by contacting the landlord.

What would you have the police, firefighters, ems, do ?

EMs and firefighter in an EM roll - the same as I have said for police. Firefighters in a fire roll - most big city fire Department have infra-red devices to detect heat (as in fire) - make sure there is no fire and call the LEs to investigate a false alarm if no fire is detected. In an apartment situation, I would also expect them to seek out the landlord for access/inspection as the danger to mutiple dwellings could be catastrophic.

[publius42]

The problem stated in the article was that they didn't have the tools to break down a door. That's silly. Any reasonably resourceful person can break most doors.

That could be wrong information in the article, and the discussion here is about whether or not to break a door because someone on the phone asked you to do so. I can't blame a cop for not doing that, but how hard would it be to identify the person on the phone in less than four hours? Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.