3 ms·

The scope of the operation also grows exponentially (or was it quadratically?) with time. Scent trails and tracks decay quickly, and at a fixed rate of travel t

The scope of the operation also grows exponentially (or was it quadratically?) with time. Scent trails and tracks decay quickly, and at a fixed rate of travel the area in which the subject can be grows as time^2 (the area of a circle). At 2mph after 1 hour your subject is within an area of roughly 12 square miles. After 24 hours that area is more than 7000 square miles. So agencies are generally interested in processing them quickly. That must be balanced against some filtering for bogus reports and incidents likely to resolve themselves, of course.

morganvachon 11y ago
> Scent trails and tracks decay quickly This is generally only an issue when it's a case of a missing-endangered subject; most missing persons reports are of a routine[1] nature (spouse is delayed in travel and can't be reached; child has run away for the third time that month). Having a blanket policy that requires timely entry of all reports will cover every scenario, especially since an otherwise routine missing person report can turn into an emergency situation after the initial report is made. > incidents likely to resolve themselves That's true, and the vast majority of missing persons reports I entered over a 14 year span were canceled within hours or at most, days, when the missing person returned of their own volition. But the ones who are found safe only as a result of the timely report stand in defense of the policy. [1] Just as there is no such thing as a "routine" traffic stop and therefore officers should always be alert, there is actually no such thing as a "routine" missing person report either; but for the sake of this discussion, by "routine" in this case I mean "not urgent or endangered".