A Presidio County Sheriff’s Office dispatcher refused to take a message, repeatedly hung up on a journalist and told him the agency no longer “deals with” him after confirming his identity.
The exchange at the center of the complaint was:
Dispatcher: “Is this David Flash?”
Flash: “Yes.”
Dispatcher: “Mr. Flash, we don’t deal with you.”
Flash: “What?”
Dispatcher: “Mr. Flash, we don’t deal with you anymore.”
That is what the complaint was about.
David Flash, publisher and editor of Big Bend Reporter, filed the formal complaint after attempting to verify information contained in a publicly released booking record. The record identified Jeff Davis County Republican Party Chair-Elect Jake Knobloch as “Jason Knoblock,” prompting Flash to contact the Sheriff’s Office to determine whether the name had been entered incorrectly.
Flash said that during his first call, he explained that he needed a message delivered to a deputy and requested a return call from a sworn officer.
The dispatcher told him he would need to speak with the Sheriff’s Office’s social media representative. She did not tell him she was referring the matter to the agency’s public information officer and did not use the term “PIO.”
Flash explained that he was not seeking assistance from a social media representative. He asked her to take a message for a deputy or the person in charge.
The dispatcher hung up.
Flash said he was not asking the dispatcher to answer the question herself, determine whether a deputy would return the call or decide how quickly the agency should respond. He was asking her to take a message and relay it to the appropriate person.
The Sheriff’s Office later stated that the chief deputy serves as its public information officer. Flash said that explanation does not address what happened during the call.
“If the chief deputy is the public information officer, then take a message for the chief deputy,” Flash said. “She did not tell me she was referring me to the PIO. She told me I needed to speak with their social media person. When I asked her to take a message for a deputy, she hung up.”
After the first call was terminated, Flash called the Sheriff’s Office again from the same telephone number. That call was not answered.
Flash then called from a second number. That call was answered.
He did not initially identify himself. Instead, he asked the dispatcher to identify herself. She responded that she was Operator 594.
Flash again requested that the deputy in charge return his call and explained that the matter did not concern social media. The dispatcher then asked whether the caller was David Flash.
When Flash confirmed his identity, she told him, “Mr. Flash, we don’t deal with you.”
Flash responded, “What?”
The dispatcher repeated, “Mr. Flash, we don’t deal with you anymore.”
Flash included both telephone numbers in his written complaint so the Sheriff’s Office could locate and review the calls. He also provided a detailed transcript of the exchange.
The complaint concerned the dispatcher’s statements, her refusal to take and relay a message, her direction that Flash speak with a social media representative and her repeated termination of the calls.
It did not concern response time.
It did not allege that a deputy was legally required to return the call immediately.
It did not allege that the Sheriff’s Office was required to provide an immediate after-hours response to a media inquiry.
However, the written disposition signed by Sheriff Danny Dominguez focused heavily on those issues.
“The inquiry was received during evening hours outside normal administrative operations and did not involve an emergency or other circumstance requiring an immediate response,” Dominguez wrote. “The Sheriff’s Office was under no obligation to provide a response within the timeframe requested by the complainant.”
Flash said he never complained that the Sheriff’s Office failed to respond within a required timeframe.
“The response reads as though they investigated a complaint I did not file,” Flash said. “My complaint was about what she said, her refusal to take a message, the way she spoke to me and the fact that she repeatedly hung up on me.”
The Sheriff’s Office said it reviewed the written complaint, “available communications related to the incident,” a statement from the employee and information provided by supervisory personnel.
“The available information does not establish that any employee violated Presidio County Sheriff’s Office policy during the incident,” Dominguez wrote.
The response did not specifically state that investigators listened to recordings of the calls.
It did not say whether the dispatcher admitted or denied making the statements.
It did not say whether investigators determined that the quoted exchange occurred.
It did not say whether the dispatcher was questioned about refusing to take a message, directing Flash to a social media representative or hanging up on him.
It also did not explain whether those actions complied with Sheriff’s Office policy or professional standards.
Flash said the lack of findings about the statements and hangups raises substantial questions about whether the calls were meaningfully reviewed.
The underlying booking-record question was later resolved by Lt. Estevan Marquez, who responded to Flash through Facebook Messenger.
Marquez confirmed that the booking record contained a typographical error and said the surname would be corrected.
“Your correct it was a typo!!” Marquez wrote.
He also addressed the dispatcher’s behavior.
“I apologize for the dispatchers behavior! Ill talk to the sheriff about it!” Marquez wrote.
Flash praised Marquez for responding promptly and professionally. He said Marquez resolved within minutes an issue that should never have escalated.
After receiving confirmation from Marquez, Flash called the Sheriff’s Office again. He said his purpose was to give the dispatcher an opportunity to explain or clarify her statements before they were quoted in a news article.
The dispatcher hung up again.
Flash said he was hung up on three times during the matter.
In a follow-up letter to Dominguez, Flash said the Sheriff’s Office had not addressed the complaint he actually filed.
“Your response did not address that allegation,” Flash wrote. “Instead, it discussed media-request procedures, after-hours communications, and whether the Sheriff’s Office was obligated to provide an immediate response. None of those matters were the basis of my complaint.”
Flash demanded that the Sheriff’s Office either provide documentation showing that the statements and hangups were investigated or conduct a new investigation that directly addresses the conduct described in the complaint.
He also issued a litigation-preservation notice directing the agency to retain call recordings, dispatch and computer-aided dispatch records, telephone records, emails, text messages, notes, investigative files, supervisor communications and other records concerning the incident and the review of his complaint.
Flash asked the agency to disclose whether recordings of the calls exist, whether they were reviewed and, if any recording previously existed but was deleted, when and under what circumstances it was destroyed.
“I would strongly prefer to resolve this matter professionally and without litigation,” Flash wrote. “This matter can still be resolved through transparency, professionalism and a meaningful review of the complaint that was actually filed.”
