IT WAS NOT CLEAR AT ALL.

HB, the last thing I want to do is debate you because I too need a few throw outs. But I don't want you to waste your time on protest day where you can be putting the effort into another question. I hear what you're saying about the bus not being 84, but giving the aided card to the desk officer is what made your choice wrong. The cop gives the aided card to the command clerk. The card only goes directly to the desk for EDP's

HB wrote:

---

We should use this thread only to post our exact arguments that we will use on the day of the protest. We can print it out for easy access. No comments just protest arguments. Ill start it off. ROUNTINE SICK AT NURSING HOME- i picked do an aided card and give to desk officer. I feel that somebody choking is not a routine sick. Especially when the stem of the question states that the food was lodged in throat and not removed. If it wasnt removed one would assume that the aided will stop breathing or actually die. Doesnt seem routine to me. Now if DCAS gets cute and says we shouldnt assume the aided stopped breathing i have a response that makes the right answer wrong. The right answer said make a activity log entry with acr #. The bus wasnt on the scene as per the question so we cant assume that it showed up then. Double answer!

-- Edited by HB on Wednesday 23rd of November 2011 04:41:45 PM

---

 The way i understood that question was that if youre entering the acr number it implies you waited for the bus.  how else would you get the acr number?

wereinbacklog wrote:

---

HB wrote:

---

We should use this thread only to post our exact arguments that we will use on the day of the protest. We can print it out for easy access. No comments just protest arguments. Ill start it off. ROUNTINE SICK AT NURSING HOME- i picked do an aided card and give to desk officer. I feel that somebody choking is not a routine sick. Especially when the stem of the question states that the food was lodged in throat and not removed. If it wasnt removed one would assume that the aided will stop breathing or actually die. Doesnt seem routine to me. Now if DCAS gets cute and says we shouldnt assume the aided stopped breathing i have a response that makes the right answer wrong. The right answer said make a activity log entry with acr #. The bus wasnt on the scene as per the question so we cant assume that it showed up then. Double answer!

-- Edited by HB on Wednesday 23rd of November 2011 04:41:45 PM

---

 The way i understood that question was that if youre entering the acr number it implies you waited for the bus.  how else would you get the acr number?

---

HB wrote:

---

Also putting the acr in the activity log means no aided card was done and it was a routine sick which it wasnt.

---

 UMMMM Thats not at all what that means

The scenario presented in the question regarding proper appearance in uniform requested that the uniformed member of the service in PROPER uniform, with no violations to report, be selected as the correct answer. Of the four (4) choices, one (1) choice was a female officer wearing a brown plastic clip in her hair, and she was a brunette. This officer was NOT in any violation because the clip was NOT classified as large which would be a violation. In addition, the clip was brown in color, which is similar to the color of the hair as is cited in Patrol Guide Procedure 203-07 step #7, cited below. The choice which referred to the member of the service, appointed in 2010, who was assigned to the West Indian Day Parade can be found in violation because this uniformed member of the service was hired after January 1, 2007, and the reference to a letter from the Commanding Officer maintained in the officer's personnel file at the command does NOT apply because this particular officer was assigned to a DETAIL for that tour. The limited exception cited in Patrol Guide Procedure 203-07 Note after step #5b does NOT support that officers assigned to duties outside of their regular command assignments are permitted to be outside of proper uniform regulations for those specific assignments. When the member of the service concerned returns to command, the limited exceptions are back in effect, and the member of the service may display tattoos as per the Commanding Officer's approval.

203-07 step #7

Necessary hair holding devices (such as but not limited to rubber bands, clips, barrettes, pins), when used, must be unadorned and plain, and be transparent or similar to the color of the hair. All such devices must be unobtrusive, and concealed as much as possible. Hair scarves, beads, bows, large and decorative fabric-covered elastic bands, large plastic

clips, or other ornamental items are prohibited

203-07 Note after step #5b

Members of the service who are hired on or after January 1, 2007, must cover any visible tattoos by either regulation uniform, proper business attire, or a neutral colored skin covering such as a sports wrap or bandage. Such covering must resemble the skin tone of the member and must cover the entire tattoo. This includes but is not limited toany tattoo visible above the shirt collar, below the sleeve ends of any shirt, or on a visible area of the leg, ankle or foot. A limited exception may be granted by the member's commanding officer in writing due to the nature of the member's assignment.Such approval must be filed in the member's personnel folder.

The question regarding whether or not to allow a parent/legal guardian to visit a 21 year old prisoner, being processed for a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT), and detained for four (4) hours is protestable. Patrol Guide Procedure 210-01 step #10 (a) states that permission from the Detective Squad Commander, arresting officer, or if visit is at other that precinct of arrest is consulted with.  The permission of the Detective Squad Commander/Arresting Officer was not provided in the exam question's scenario. The question made no reference to that very important fact. Without the mentioning of this fact, the correct choice is open ended. The mentioning of the DAT process allows the fact that prisoner was being processed at the Pct of Arrest to be inferred. However, the age (21), the amount of time detained (4 hrs), is not enough to determine whether or not a parent/legal guardian may be permitted to visit. PG 210-01 #10 demands that certain criteria be met prior to allowing the visit to take place in the muster room. DCAS again tried to play with criteria and published a very debatable question.

210-01 step #10(a-e)

10. Permit parents or legal guardian to visit a prisoner between the ages of sixteen (16) and twenty-one (21), for not longer than fifteen (15) minutes, in the muster room, provided:

a. Detective squad commander, arresting officer or, if visit is at otherthan precinct of arrest, desk officer, precinct of arrest is consulted

b. Visit is in presence of desk officer/borough court section supervisor

c. Prisoner has been detained more than four (4) hours

d. Prisoner is not eligible for a summons

e. Visit does not interfere with police business

I am lodging a protest to Question #64 on Exam No. 1534 Promotion to Lieutenant (Police). My protest on the Missing Person question has its basis in the exact wording of Patrol Guide Procedure 207-23 Missing Persons. I feel the exam writers made a mistake by asking a question that has no clear definition within the procedure. The question on the Lieutenant Exam asked if a roommate could report someone missing (another roommate). While I do not argue that the definition of who qualifies as a missing person is clearly defined with PG 207-23, the definition of who can report is NOT. I think the exam writers opened themselves up to a protest on the grounds of the question being ambiguous and having no solid backing from the Patrol Guide.

PG 207-23 Note after step #1
 
A complainant could be, in addition to a member of the family, a legal or temporary guardian, a representative of the Board of Education, or a hospital administrator.
 

The above section of PG 207-23 does not use the words MUST, ONLY, CAN ONLY BE, ONLY PERMITTED TO BE, etc. The phrase "could be" is what appears in the Patrol Guide, therefore a roommate may be considered as an appropriate complainant based on the totality of the circumstances. The phrase "could be" does not mandate who is eligible to be a complainant in the matter of a missing person investigation. The question on the Lt Exam did not present any circumstances besides the roommate seeking to report his roommate missing. There is not enough information to disregard the roommate as a potential complainant in this matter, because there may be no other person available to in fact report a bonafide missing person case, which deserves appropriate police attention and response. If the correct choice, as per DCAS, is to deny to roommate from acting as the complainant, then I feel there is strong ground to protest the make up of this question. Whether or not the missing person was of sound mind or emotionally disturbed, or whether they haven't been accounted for in a few hours or multiple days/weeks/months was not provided in the question scenario.

staystrong wrote:

---

The hair clip was the only right answer

---

 Just curious, what's your reasoning for the tattoo being wrong?

i disagree with this. the question did not say whether there was a report taken or if he was even requesting a report or asking advice. the question said that he had a broken arm from a hit and run accident pick the best answer. the best answer should have been reinterview the person to figure out what he wanted, however this was not an option. very vague. protestable.

infinity wrote:

---

Staystrong, I agree with you. But what it means and says are 2 different things.

---

 Exactly. I think the tattoo was a better answer than the hair clip because the hair clip must be concealed as much as possible, and if you saw it during roll call, obviously it wasn't.

staystrong. what did the question say then. I remember reading that question a ton of times

Walk-In Request for PAR Protest

(Is it true that in ALL cases a complainant walking into to a Pct to report a Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Injuries sustained by the complainant will be referred to the Pct of Occurrence for both the PAR and Complaint Report? Do the 3 criteria (injury and reported within last 5 days, serious injury/death or commercial vehicle stipulation) have any bearing on whether you always refer the walk-in to the Pct of Occurrence?)

The last paragraph does not stand alone, and cannot be read as its own special guideline for requests made in person. The Additional Data has to be read as a complete section, and the three (3) criteria MUST be evaluated before any walk-in request is referred to the precinct of occurrence. All walk-in requests for a PAR are NOT sent to Precinct of Occurrence. There is a criterion that must be evaluated.

The requestor walked in with a broken hand and the time frame was reported as seven (7) days. The inference that the exam writer expected (which is the protest worthy area of this question) was that the broken hand was a serious injury.

217-13 Add Data

Uniformed members of the service are required by law to complete a Police Accident Report and investigate the facts whenever any person(s)/party appears at a police facility and reports the following:

ANY ACCIDENTwhich:

a. Results in serious injury or death to a person must be investigated in accordance with P.G. 217-02, "Vehicle Accidents Which Result in Death or Serious Injury and Likely to Die"

b. Results in injury to a person and the motor vehicle accident in question is being reported within five (5) days after such accident

c. Involves a commercial vehicle where the damage incurred is disabling enough to result in a vehicle being towed from the accident scene and the motor vehicle accident in question is being reported within five (5) days after such accident.

Regarding the above circumstances, if the criteria as stated are met, the person(s)/party requesting the completion of a Police Accident Report will be referred to the command where the accident took place. ONLY A UNIFORMED MEMBER OF THE SERVICE (UMOS) will prepare a Police Accident Report. The UMOS concerned will ask to view the vehicle in question (if available), and interview those claiming to be party to the accident (if present), before completing the Police Accident Report. In ALL cases, the UMOS must note in the "Accident Description/Officer's Notes" section of the Police Accident Report", whether or not they had the opportunity to actually view the vehicle or interview the person(s) involved in the accident."

Any person(s)/party appearing in person at a police facility and requesting initial preparation of a Police Accident Report for an accident that does not meet the above criteria, shall instead be given a copy of New York State Department of Motor Vehicles-Report of Motor Vehicle Accident (MV104) to complete and submit on their own.

Any person(s)/party appearing in person at a police facility and requesting that a Police Accident Report be completed for them, where property damage to a vehicle or personal injury is involved, and the operator of one of the vehicles has fled the scene without reporting, will be referred to the command where the accident occurred (see P.G. 217-05, "Leaving the Scene").

staystrong wrote:

---

Argue this point cornhole and I hope you get the point..... but you're wrong.....It's saying if you break it down in addition to a member of the family, a complainant can also be the following: a legal or temporary guardian, a representative of the Board of Education, or a hospital administrator............I agree not the best question but none the less a roommate is not one of them

---

 @staystrong: thanks for pushing me to protest, but I disagree with you labeling my point as "wrong". I think the exam writers got real cute with many, many questions on this test and the missing person question was one of them. Who can report a missing person is not clearly defined, while a missing person is. I'm just looking for support from anyone else that needs a point like myself.

@ Infinity: refer the walk-in to the Pct of Occurrence was the answer from 90% of people who referred, got it right and now don't care that the this was one of many retarded questions on a poorly written exam from beginning to end

cornhole wrote:

---

@ Infinity: refer the walk-in to the Pct of Occurrence was the answer from 90% of people who referred, got it right and now don't care that the this was one of many retarded questions on a poorly written exam from beginning to end

---