CA - Police say phone company refused to help find missing Corona child

Police say the Sprint telecommunications company refused to provide information to help locate a toddler who was in his father's SUV when it was stolen.
In response, Riverside County lawmakers on Tuesday will consider a moratorium on permits for new Sprint cellular towers.
"My point is to send the message to the provider that we need to do things differently when a child's life is at risk," said county Supervisor John Tavaglione, who proposed the moratorium. "The bureaucracy and the hoops that everyone has to jump through need to be minimized."
The drama began the morning of Dec. 23, when Jason Cochran buckled his 10-month-old son, Wade, into his car seat and ran into his house near Corona to get his 3-year-old son, Blake. When Cochran came back outside, his beige Lincoln Aviator - and Wade - were gone.
Cochran's cell phone, equipped with a global positioning system, also was in the car.
But Cochran's wife, Stephanie, said a Sprint operator told her the company couldn't give her the coordinates for the Aviator's location. The company told a Riverside County sheriff's detective that it wouldn't release the information without a subpoena and a $25 fee, she said.
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/13592016.htm

Officials move to penalize Sprint over missing baby

The story had a happy ending, but it's the "what ifs" that bother Jason and Stephanie Cochran, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, County Supervisor John Tavaglione and Temecula City Councilman Mike Naggar.

The Cochrans got their 10-month-old son, Wade, back, safe and unharmed, two hours after he was abducted by someone who stole their idling Lincoln Aviator from the driveway of their Eastvale home. But what incensed the parents, deputies who searched for the missing baby -- and now local lawmakers -- is that cellular company Sprint didn't cooperate with the sheriff's department in tracking the missing SUV.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/corona/stories/PE_News_Local_H_gps10.dd95933.html

After her husband's SUV was stolen from the driveway with her 10-month-old son still in the back seat, Stephanie Cochran of Riverside County thought the global positioning system in her husband's cellphone — still inside the car — would help her or the police locate her baby.

It felt like it was "my last string of hope," Cochran said of their wireless provider, Sprint, about the Dec. 23 incident.

Sprint is investigating the incident to determine what happened, said company spokeswoman Kathleen Dunleavy.

Sprint has in place emergency procedures in which law enforcement officials can fill out a special form and fax it back to the company within "a matter of minutes," said Dunleavy, in Los Angeles.

"If proper procedure is followed, Sprint acts very quickly," Dunleavy said. Sprint requires a subpoena in nonemergency circumstances "to protect our customers' privacy," Dunleavy said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-sprint10jan10,1,5819109.story?coll=la-news-state

Unbelievable! I say boycot Sprint.

LOL, they are going one better. They are currently working on a way to refuse to issue permits for their towers in that area.

"if proper procedure is followed...." - yeah, right Sprint - it's your responsibility not to make the police jump through hoops when someone's life is in danger! They should be helping the police in every way to do whatever minute amount of paperwork is needed to assure the public that this is a true emergency, then immediately turning over the tracking info.

Actually, I don't think they should even be too hot on requiring the "proper procedure" - work with the police, and sue them if they lie about it being a proper emergency. Better to turn over the info more quickly, and have an occasion or two when it was turned over when it wasn't an emergency than to have a possibly deadly delay.

Glad I don't have Sprint! Way to go Riverside, penalizing the company in a way that really hurts it enough for them to need to change.

mysteriew said:

After her husband's SUV was stolen from the driveway with her 10-month-old son still in the back seat, Stephanie Cochran of Riverside County thought the global positioning system in her husband's cellphone — still inside the car — would help her or the police locate her baby.

It felt like it was "my last string of hope," Cochran said of their wireless provider, Sprint, about the Dec. 23 incident.

Sprint is investigating the incident to determine what happened, said company spokeswoman Kathleen Dunleavy.

Sprint has in place emergency procedures in which law enforcement officials can fill out a special form and fax it back to the company within "a matter of minutes," said Dunleavy, in Los Angeles.

"If proper procedure is followed, Sprint acts very quickly," Dunleavy said. Sprint requires a subpoena in nonemergency circumstances "to protect our customers' privacy," Dunleavy said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-sprint10jan10,1,5819109.story?coll=la-news-state

Click to expand...

How can they require a subpeona, when the subscriber was the one requesting and paying for the service? This is just crazy:razz:

There is one thing that I don't understand. What is the advantage of having GPS on your phone if you can't get access to the info?
I mean is it so the phone co. can always locate you?
I always felt comforted by the fact that my cell had GPS capability, but I never looked into what would have to happen to get that info. If I as a cell phone owner cannot access that info, then why have it?

I'm glad little Wade is safe and sound.

This really brings up some interesting points, though, doesn't it, about privacy and rights and law enforcement tracking people, and procedures.

mysteriew said:

There is one thing that I don't understand. What is the advantage of having GPS on your phone if you can't get access to the info?
I mean is it so the phone co. can always locate you?
I always felt comforted by the fact that my cell had GPS capability, but I never looked into what would have to happen to get that info. If I as a cell phone owner cannot access that info, then why have it?

Click to expand...

Exactly!!:waitasec: Makes you wonder how they can charge you for the service If the information is not available to you.

KatherineQ said:

I'm glad little Wade is safe and sound.

This really brings up some interesting points, though, doesn't it, about privacy and rights and law enforcement tracking people, and procedures.

Click to expand...

Yes it does, but the man wanted to track his own vehicle and phone, and his wife was the one requesting the coordinates, not LE (at least from my interpretation of the story.)

bakerprune64 said:

Yes it does, but the man wanted to track his own vehicle and phone, and his wife was the one requesting the coordinates, not LE (at least from my interpretation of the story.)

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like the police asked also. In Mysteriew's first post the article stated this....

But Cochran's wife, Stephanie, said a Sprint operator told her the company couldn't give her the coordinates for the Aviator's location. The company told a Riverside County sheriff's detective that it wouldn't release the information without a subpoena and a $25 fee, she said.

But the ultimate lesson here is DON'T LEAVE YOUR (young) CHILD IN A RUNNING CAR WHILE YOU RUN INSIDE! No one can watch their children all the time, but it's not like this kid ran away in a crowd or something. From the type of car they owned, maybe they lived in a nice neighborhood and thought it would be safe?

Like many, I have the story from hell about Sprint...but nothing like this. I ran across this little place a few years ago. Http://sprintsucks.com/

I would never use Sprint even before this article.

that reminds me of this site:

http://www.paypalsucks.com

hmm, that link I posted doesn't seem to work at the moment. I know Paypal was trying to get the site removed, maybe they did!

bakerprune64 said:

Yes it does, but the man wanted to track his own vehicle and phone, and his wife was the one requesting the coordinates, not LE (at least from my interpretation of the story.)

Click to expand...

Bakerprune - that was my first interpretation of the story, too. And then I reread it and I wasn't as sure.

If that's the case, forget it. One adult shouldn't be able to call and get location coordinates on another adult. The implications are terrifying.

bakerprune64 said:

How can they require a subpeona, when the subscriber was the one requesting and paying for the service? This is just crazy:razz:

Click to expand...

That was my first thought as well since they stated it was for the protection and privacy of the subscribers and if there is a policy in effect for emergencies why didn't LE know about it or tell LE and the parents about it? This proper policy system sounds like something they dreamed up as an excuse for someones screw up. The way the article reads it sounds as if the parents tried first and got no results so then the police contacted them thinking they'd give it to them.

Strach - as I read it, and I could be wrong, it was the wife trying to get locations on the husband's cell phone.

I may be reading it wrong.

Would you want that? Or the opposite, a husband getting the location on a wife's cell phone? Maybe an estranged wife? . . .

No, I wouldn't. LE calling is one thing. A spouse calling on a spouse is another entirely different thing. In my opinion.

KatherineQ said:

Strach - as I read it, and I could be wrong, it was the wife trying to get locations on the husband's cell phone.

I may be reading it wrong.

Would you want that? Or the opposite, a husband getting the location on a wife's cell phone? Maybe an estranged wife? . . .

No, I wouldn't. LE calling is one thing. A spouse calling on a spouse is another entirely different thing. In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Well, our cell phones are in both of our names. Besides the husband was right there, so why didn't they just say put him on the phone. Instead they stated that they would need a subpeona and $25? What are we missing here?