Laserfiche WebLink
I )nald R. Dwyer <br /> rector <br /> <br />I TO: <br /> <br />I FROM: <br />I <br />I <br /> GROUP 1 <br />I <br /> <br />COUNTY OF AN.OKA <br /> Central Cornmunicalions <br /> <br />COURTHOUSE ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 612-421-4760 <br /> <br /> ANOKA COUNTY CENTRAL COMMUNICATIONS <br /> October 15, 1981 <br /> <br />THE ANOKA COUNTY JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL <br /> <br />DONALD R. DWYER, DIRECTOR, ANOKA COUNTY CENTRAL COMMUNICATIONS <br /> <br />SUBJECT: TRI-COUNTY STUDY <br /> <br />This is a copy of the results of the Tri-County Study. To accomplish this task <br />we used the warrant arrest information supplied by M.C.I.U. and broke down that <br />information into the following three groups: <br /> <br />Arrests in which warrants were secondary i.e. the party would have been <br />arrested even if there were no warrants. <br /> <br />GROUP 2 <br /> <br />Arrests in which warrants were either computerized or discovered in a way not <br />involving the Tri-County check. <br /> <br />GROUP 3 <br /> <br />Arrests in which the reason for arrest or the discovery method for the warrant <br />could not be readily determined. <br /> <br />For the purpose of this study we assumed that all arrests in Group 3 were <br />successful Tri-County discoveries. <br /> <br />During the period from May 22 through August 31, 1981 there were 265 arrests in <br />which warrants were involved. Those arrests broke down into the following groups: <br /> <br />Group 1 47 <br />Group 2 174 <br />Group 3 44 <br /> <br />Of the 44 warrants in Group 3 the reasons for the warrants were divided as <br />follows (in cases of multiple warrants we counted the warrant we believed to <br />be most serious): <br /> <br />"emergency dispatching for Sheriff, Police and Fire departments in Anoka County" <br /> Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer <br /> <br /> <br />