Communications Dispatch

Order 443, version 7, establishes procedures for JSO’s Communications Dispatch personnel. Effective November 26, 2025, the policy addresses call assignments, delayed responses, radio communications, officer status, emergency situations, and the distribution of information between dispatchers and responding officers.

Dispatchers influence both how quickly officers respond and what officers believe they are responding to. The information provided can affect whether an officer expects a routine complaint, a person needing assistance, or an immediate threat.

This version followed a serious communication failure. During a November 1, 2025 incident, information initially connected a stolen Kia to a nearby shooting. A lieutenant later reported that the shooting vehicle might instead be a Dodge Durango, but that update was shared only over District 1’s radio. A citywide notification continued to associate the Kia with the shooting. An officer subsequently pursued and shot a passenger after the Kia crashed. [JSO’s December 3 briefing](https://www.jaxsheriff.org/News/20251101-CIB.aspx)

The Tributary reported that the passenger was an unarmed 14-year-old who survived. First Coast News reported that changes to the dispatch policy took effect on November 26. The incident therefore provides context for this revision, but it cannot establish a violation of requirements adopted afterward. [The Tributary](https://floridatrib.org/2025/12/05/police-shooting-of-14-year-old-boy-exposes-jso-dispatch-failure/), [First Coast News](https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/jso-911-communication-dispatch-update/77-5a6b5022-ea1d-4fee-8809-320d3ce9a82b)

The policy assigns responsibility for sharing information across districts. The dispatcher handling an active incident must distribute updates to dispatchers working other districts or radio channels. A Communications Center Manager must also monitor large-scale and noteworthy incidents.

These requirements address an important point of failure. Information received by one part of the agency may affect officers working elsewhere. Assigning responsibility for distributing that information makes the process more accountable.

The policy also requires dispatchers to review updated calls immediately and communicate the information to field units. Its examples distinguish incidents whose relationship is unknown. This helps prevent a possible connection from being presented as an established fact.

Delayed calls receive additional oversight. A supervisor must approve holding a call beyond its prescribed dispatch limit, and the dispatcher must record the approving supervisor’s identity. Holding the call does not relieve the dispatcher of responsibility for sending the first appropriate available unit.

Dispatchers must also call complainants back when a call remains undispatched thirty minutes after being held. This creates an opportunity to explain the delay and determine whether the situation has changed.

Other provisions protect continuity. Calls cannot be delayed merely to wait for a shift change. Dispatchers must brief their replacements, obtain required acknowledgments, and relay pertinent information before clearing duplicate calls.

The available text is clearer about distributing updates than it is about confirming that a significant correction reached everyone who needs it.

These are separate steps. A dispatcher can transmit an update while an officer continues acting on the original information. When a correction changes whether a person or vehicle is believed to be connected to a violent crime, confirming receipt becomes particularly important.

The available transcript does not provide a complete, clearly identifiable sequence for correcting the original notification, identifying its recipients, and confirming that affected personnel received the correction. However, portions of the transcript are incomplete. This limits the assessment and prevents a definitive conclusion that the original policy contains no additional safeguards.

The handling of delayed calls presents another concern. After a supervisor approves a hold, the dispatcher resets the call’s timeout. The policy also warns that calls returned to the pending queue will not time out normally and require special attention.

Resetting a timer does not establish that the original timestamps are erased. However, oversight should measure the caller’s total waiting time, including every extension. Otherwise, reviewing individual timer intervals could provide an incomplete picture of the delay.

The premise-information procedure also leaves questions unanswered in the available text. Dispatchers enter information associated with an address, including warnings based on previous incidents and medical information. Those records can influence how officers approach a location. The provisions reviewed do not clearly explain how inaccurate or outdated information is corrected, reviewed, or removed.

Significant corrections should follow a defined process. The policy should identify who updates the original CAD entry or notification, which districts must receive the correction, and when responding officers must acknowledge it.

The original information should remain available in the audit history, while the current record clearly identifies what has changed. This would allow reviewers to reconstruct the event without leaving outdated information presented as current.

Supervisors should verify completion when a correction materially changes the perceived threat. Examples include information that a person is no longer considered armed or that a vehicle is no longer believed to be connected to a shooting.

Delayed-call reviews should use the original receipt time. Each extension should record the reason, approving supervisor, available resources, and next review point. Calls returned to the pending queue should receive a reliable reminder or alert.

Callbacks should also document whether the reported circumstances have changed. A caller’s situation may become more urgent while the call is waiting.

Premise records should identify their source, date, and factual basis. Records requiring periodic review should have a review date, and employees should have a clear procedure for correcting information that is no longer accurate.

These changes would strengthen the ability to determine whether information was received, understood, and acted upon.

The November incident demonstrates why dispatch accuracy matters to the person encountering police as well as to the responding officer. Information suggesting involvement in a shooting can shape an officer’s expectations before contact occurs.

JSO reported that the State Attorney’s Office found no criminal violation by the officer and that an internal policy review would follow. That announced finding does not establish that the communication process worked properly or resolve whether the revised procedures adequately address the failure. [JSO’s December 3 briefing](https://www.jaxsheriff.org/News/20251101-CIB.aspx)

Version 7 contains useful requirements for sharing updates, supervising significant incidents, and managing delayed calls. The remaining concern is whether those requirements produce a verifiable result.

A record that an update was sent is useful. Confirmation that affected personnel received the correction provides stronger assurance. Similarly, documenting approval to delay a call establishes who made the decision, while reviewing the full waiting period helps determine whether the delay remained appropriate.

The incomplete transcript limits conclusions about the policy’s precise omissions. Within those limits, the central accountability question is whether JSO can demonstrate that important corrections reach the people acting on the original information and that delayed calls remain subject to meaningful review.